Author Topic: Mark Lundy  (Read 30641 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2017, 12:03:AM »
Maybe Glenn Weggery was in it with him. I don't know. But none of these murderers has a substantial alibi, which is why they end up in the dock in the first place.  http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/268541/unidentified-fibres-not-lundy's,-court-hears
He had a watertight alibi. He was in Petone with 30 liters insufficient petrol to make 3 trips.
His daughter died with a quite full stomach after purchasing takeaways at 5 50pm. She always went to bed at 8pm, so was dead before midnight. Mark Lundy's earliest time of arrival was 3am. Ask your gastro surgeon how long you must fast before a gastro endoscopy to ensure an empty stomach, and he will tell you six hours, though 4 is usual. Amber did eat so much there was half an apple pie uneaten, so six hours is possible, 6 30 pm eating, to 12 30 am death latest possible time.

It is pointless arguing, this guy

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11533202

calls it a miscarriage of justice and is standing for parliament. He and the shadow minister of justice, Jacinda Ardern were recently at a lunch where Steve Braunias, a crime reporter who has read the document you refuse to, instructed all those present who believed Mark Lundy guilty to change their "fuckin" minds.

Mark and Jeremy are the most famous current two commonwealth kids to be treated in this way by their peoples.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 12:04:AM by Samson »

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #61 on: February 11, 2017, 12:06:AM »
How does that prove he didn't hire someone?
You can never prove you didn't hire someone.
However if that is what the police believed, that is the case they must bring.

He did not hire someone though, we know who was hired and why.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #62 on: February 11, 2017, 12:47:AM »
He had a watertight alibi. He was in Petone with 30 liters insufficient petrol to make 3 trips.
His daughter died with a quite full stomach after purchasing takeaways at 5 50pm. She always went to bed at 8pm, so was dead before midnight. Mark Lundy's earliest time of arrival was 3am. Ask your gastro surgeon how long you must fast before a gastro endoscopy to ensure an empty stomach, and he will tell you six hours, though 4 is usual. Amber did eat so much there was half an apple pie uneaten, so six hours is possible, 6 30 pm eating, to 12 30 am death latest possible time.

It is pointless arguing, this guy

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11533202

calls it a miscarriage of justice and is standing for parliament. He and the shadow minister of justice, Jacinda Ardern were recently at a lunch where Steve Braunias, a crime reporter who has read the document you refuse to, instructed all those present who believed Mark Lundy guilty to change their "fuckin" minds.

Mark and Jeremy are the most famous current two commonwealth kids to be treated in this way by their peoples.
From what I read Lundy's vehicle had more mileage on the clock than should have been the case had he only travelled there and back. And haven't you heard of jerry cans? As for the stomach contents there was a 14-hour window according to Dr. Pang.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67412495/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-evidence-changes

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #63 on: February 11, 2017, 01:38:AM »
From what I read Lundy's vehicle had more mileage on the clock than should have been the case had he only travelled there and back. And haven't you heard of jerry cans? As for the stomach contents there was a 14-hour window according to Dr. Pang.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67412495/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-evidence-changes
Forget Pang, i have posted frequently on that hapless old fool. He was forced to lie on the stand by the police. Of course you can't hold two views simultneously, stomach contents prove they died at 7 15pm, and stomach contents prove that they died any time in a 15 hour window. Try that on a modal logician Steve.  ;D
I have read an email since the trial from Michael Horowitz, defence expert, who says he considers Lundy definitely innocent on stomach contents evidence, after reviewing material he did not have at the trial. He coauthored a book with Knight on stomach issues.

Extra petrol was never mooted at either trial, and is unusable.

Anyway, I will not waste time on this thread until you have read the meticulous research of the private investigator.

Listen to this instead.

Lyrics:

It's a mystery to me - the game commences
for the usual fee - plus expenses
confidential information - contained in a diary
this is my investigation - not a public inquiry

I go checking out the reports - digging up the dirt
you get to meet all sorts in this line of work
treachery and treason - there's always an excuse for it
and when I find the reason I still can't get used to it

And what have you got at the end of the day?
what have you got to take away?
a bottle of whisky and a new set of lies
blinds on the windows and a pain behind the eyes

Scarred for life - no compensation
private investigations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxS-ICzjO6I

Oh my that is good.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2017, 01:40:AM by Samson »

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #64 on: February 11, 2017, 11:53:AM »
Forget Pang, i have posted frequently on that hapless old fool. He was forced to lie on the stand by the police. Of course you can't hold two views simultneously, stomach contents prove they died at 7 15pm, and stomach contents prove that they died any time in a 15 hour window. Try that on a modal logician Steve.  ;D
I have read an email since the trial from Michael Horowitz, defence expert, who says he considers Lundy definitely innocent on stomach contents evidence, after reviewing material he did not have at the trial. He coauthored a book with Knight on stomach issues.

Extra petrol was never mooted at either trial, and is unusable.

Anyway, I will not waste time on this thread until you have read the meticulous research of the private investigator.

Listen to this instead.

Lyrics:

It's a mystery to me - the game commences
for the usual fee - plus expenses
confidential information - contained in a diary
this is my investigation - not a public inquiry

I go checking out the reports - digging up the dirt
you get to meet all sorts in this line of work
treachery and treason - there's always an excuse for it
and when I find the reason I still can't get used to it

And what have you got at the end of the day?
what have you got to take away?
a bottle of whisky and a new set of lies
blinds on the windows and a pain behind the eyes

Scarred for life - no compensation
private investigations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxS-ICzjO6I

Oh my that is good.

What was the motive for this 'other person'?
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #65 on: February 11, 2017, 07:45:PM »
What was the motive for this 'other person'?
Money.
The other person was a gangster, his organisation involved in debt collecting. After the murders, a property was sold at 30% below value and the funds realised were used to pay the creditor. This occurred when these people understood the creditor really was keen to be paid.
Curiously, despite the logic of this explanation, people are unconvinced. Yet there are only two possibilities, a random home invasion, or an event linked to the wine venture, the middle man and debts. Lundy himself is excluded for alibi reasons.
You may note that there are strong similarities to Bamber, with dubious forensics tying a man to the crime of killing his family for financial gain, despite there being strong alibi evidence showing them to be elsewhere, and of course logical and far more plausible explanations and suspects being available.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #66 on: February 11, 2017, 07:53:PM »
Money.
The other person was a gangster, his organisation involved in debt collecting. After the murders, a property was sold at 30% below value and the funds realised were used to pay the creditor. This occurred when these people understood the creditor really was keen to be paid.
Curiously, despite the logic of this explanation, people are unconvinced. Yet there are only two possibilities, a random home invasion, or an event linked to the wine venture, the middle man and debts. Lundy himself is excluded for alibi reasons.
You may note that there are strong similarities to Bamber
, with dubious forensics tying a man to the crime of killing his family for financial gain, despite there being strong alibi evidence showing them to be elsewhere, and of course logical and far more plausible explanations and suspects being available.
Many of us have noted it yes. You'd have the drug squad, the miscreants Nevill sentenced to a night in the cells, Sheila's acquaintances in Maida Vale and Uncle Tom Cobley and all guilty, and now you're telling us a failing sink salesman's wife was targeted because he owed some money to the bank and just happened to be absent when these gangsters struck.

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #67 on: February 11, 2017, 10:05:PM »
Money.
The other person was a gangster, his organisation involved in debt collecting. After the murders, a property was sold at 30% below value and the funds realised were used to pay the creditor. This occurred when these people understood the creditor really was keen to be paid.
Curiously, despite the logic of this explanation, people are unconvinced. Yet there are only two possibilities, a random home invasion, or an event linked to the wine venture, the middle man and debts. Lundy himself is excluded for alibi reasons.
You may note that there are strong similarities to Bamber, with dubious forensics tying a man to the crime of killing his family for financial gain, despite there being strong alibi evidence showing them to be elsewhere, and of course logical and far more plausible explanations and suspects being available.

I don't really see that many similarities to Bamber but none of what you have said exonerates Lundy because he could also have committed the crime for money and hired someone else to do it. The three phone calls spaced out are suspicious.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2017, 06:43:AM »
In reply to the above two comments, the Galileo trials were about whether the sun went round the earth or vice versa. The science and facts in Lundy are as settled, it is the legal process we are examining. I have offered the material which shows this, and I thought that you would want the facts to discuss rather than the completely false crown case. If I sound sure of all this, it is not without reason. Just today I have spent a couple of hours discussing a legal matter in the case with our friend NNZ

Offline Caroline

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 27075
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #69 on: February 13, 2017, 07:40:PM »
In reply to the above two comments, the Galileo trials were about whether the sun went round the earth or vice versa. The science and facts in Lundy are as settled, it is the legal process we are examining. I have offered the material which shows this, and I thought that you would want the facts to discuss rather than the completely false crown case. If I sound sure of all this, it is not without reason. Just today I have spent a couple of hours discussing a legal matter in the case with our friend NNZ

And? You're sure Bamber is innocent so I don't hold much store in your verdict on this case.
Few people have the imagination for reality

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #70 on: February 15, 2017, 09:07:PM »
And? You're sure Bamber is innocent so I don't hold much store in your verdict on this case.
We are only interested in cases where innocent people are in jail. Bamber and Lundy are two that are in this position in the Commonwealth, there may be others, but these two are standouts, and their situations can and will be remedied.

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #71 on: February 15, 2017, 10:34:PM »
We are only interested in cases where innocent people are in jail. Bamber and Lundy are two that are in this position in the Commonwealth, there may be others, but these two are standouts, and their situations can and will be remedied.
There's an article sympathetic to Lundy here. However the brain matter on the polo shirt has not been explained away to my satisfaction and is probably what led the jury to convict.  http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/uploaded-documents/Lundy_Retrial.pdf

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2017, 01:36:AM »
There's an article sympathetic to Lundy here. However the brain matter on the polo shirt has not been explained away to my satisfaction and is probably what led the jury to convict.  http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/uploaded-documents/Lundy_Retrial.pdf
A simple way to understand the brain evidence is to realise the cop said to Rod Miller of Texas "it is essential we prove this substance is brain".
Miller proceeded to use immunohistochemistry. This test is designed to test for types of cancer in material whose exact provenance is known. The material must be fresh and in formalin. It is from a biopsy, say liver, and to determine what liver cancer is present in order to decide drugs etc.

Questions.
1. Was the material on the shirt fresh and preserved in formalin?
2. Was it known exactly what it began as?

If the answer to either of the above is no, the test can not work.

The FDA prohibits the use of immunohistochemistry in forensics in the USA.
When Miller was told this in the 2002 trial, he said so what? This is New Zealand.
Do you see where this is heading? As in Bamber, the mystery is not in what happened, but how so many people could succumb to an obvious hoax and fearsome injustice.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 01:38:AM by Samson »

Offline Steve_uk

  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 17937
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2017, 02:06:AM »
A simple way to understand the brain evidence is to realise the cop said to Rod Miller of Texas "it is essential we prove this substance is brain".
Miller proceeded to use immunohistochemistry. This test is designed to test for types of cancer in material whose exact provenance is known. The material must be fresh and in formalin. It is from a biopsy, say liver, and to determine what liver cancer is present in order to decide drugs etc.

Questions.
1. Was the material on the shirt fresh and preserved in formalin?
2. Was it known exactly what it began as?

If the answer to either of the above is no, the test can not work.

The FDA prohibits the use of immunohistochemistry in forensics in the USA.
When Miller was told this in the 2002 trial, he said so what? This is New Zealand.
Do you see where this is heading? As in Bamber, the mystery is not in what happened, but how so many people could succumb to an obvious hoax and fearsome injustice.
There was his wife's DNA on the shirt as well as brain matter. I can't find any reference to America banning the use of immunohistochemistry in criminal cases.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67190535/smear-on-mark-lundys-shirt-absolutely-brain-tissue-pathologist-says

Offline Samson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
Re: Mark Lundy
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2017, 03:07:AM »
There was his wife's DNA on the shirt as well as brain matter. I can't find any reference to America banning the use of immunohistochemistry in criminal cases.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67190535/smear-on-mark-lundys-shirt-absolutely-brain-tissue-pathologist-says
She licked her finger to rub out the spot of food debris.
The FDA prohibits the use alright, and there is a huge document prepared in mid 2015 to determine protocols for forensics in America. What Miller did violates about 50 of these guidelines.
This is wasting time Steve, as I said we know who did the crime and why. It will become clear later this year.