Jeremy Bamber Forum

OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other high profile cases => Topic started by: David1819 on September 08, 2016, 01:55:AM

Title: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 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.


More can be read here

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

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

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


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

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lundy_murders)

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

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


This is him a the funeral. Very bad acting if you ask me  ::)
https://youtu.be/4u9WGGBQ4Kc?t=33m41s (https://youtu.be/4u9WGGBQ4Kc?t=33m41s)
Yes, and the ability to switch emotions on and off at will reminds one of the Bamber funerals. 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEQJ2Ly2Acg)
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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 (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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 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


Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 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  :-\
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on September 09, 2016, 11:22:PM
Bernard Knight has expressed doubts over Bamber's guilt long after the trial by the way Steve.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on September 10, 2016, 12:16:AM
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

That was at the trial. The appeal papers above mention doubts since the trial.

The way this case has been handled is a total disgrace.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on September 10, 2016, 12:28:AM
That was at the trial. The appeal papers above mention doubts since the trial.

The way this case has been handled is a total disgrace.
Where is the "fresh evidence" as alluded to in the document in #'13 and do you have the link?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on September 10, 2016, 12:40:AM
Where is the "fresh evidence" as alluded to in the document in #'13 and do you have the link?

Its all about blood groups in the silencer.
Title: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on January 29, 2017, 10:01:PM
Oh I get it now: you're a Kiwi doctor!
Huh? I have a bachelor degree in English and a bit of logic and philosophy.
However I have made a study of many wrongful murder convictions, and there are clear patterns, all components are present in this Bamber case, but signally, it is often reliance on one highly contentious forensic matter, the blood in the silencer here.
 cf. The dna on a bra clasp in Knox/Sollecito, the cartridge case in Arthur Thomas, the shirt spots in Mark Lundy, the two hairs in Scott Watson, the serrated knife in Damien Echols, the blood in the Rav4 in Steven Avery, the bogus blood test in Lindy Chamberlain and so on.
Unfortunately these matters convict in first instance because jurors tend to believe what the police bring to court. In subsequent proceedings the appeal courts start with destination guilty, to preserve the sanctity of the disastrous jury system, and stagger drunkenly backwards to the crime scene cherry picking bits that can formulate a fictional narrative.
However, only one domino needs to be removed to thwart a world record toppling attempt.
Appeal courts, please understand this, and learn to reverse false convictions like this one. You will sleep better.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Adam on January 29, 2017, 10:15:PM
Huh? I have a bachelor degree in English and a bit of logic and philosophy.
However I have made a study of many wrongful murder convictions, and there are clear patterns, all components are present in this Bamber case, but signally, it is often reliance on one highly contentious forensic matter, the blood in the silencer here.
 cf. The dna on a bra clasp in Knox/Sollecito, the cartridge case in Arthur Thomas, the shirt spots in Mark Lundy, the two hairs in Scott Watson, the serrated knife in Damien Echols, the blood in the Rav4 in Steven Avery, the bogus blood test in Lindy Chamberlain and so on.
Unfortunately these matters convict in first instance because jurors tend to believe what the police bring to court. In subsequent proceedings the appeal courts start with destination guilty, to preserve the sanctity of the disastrous jury system, and stagger drunkenly backwards to the crime scene cherry picking bits that can formulate a fictional narrative.
However, only one domino needs to be removed to thwart a world record toppling attempt.
Appeal courts, please understand this, and learn to reverse false convictions like this one. You will sleep better.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7204.msg375403.html#msg375403

There is a mountain of forensic evidence. Some of it in the library.

There is also a mountain of circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on January 29, 2017, 10:16:PM
Huh? I have a bachelor degree in English and a bit of logic and philosophy.
However I have made a study of many wrongful murder convictions, and there are clear patterns, all components are present in this Bamber case, but signally, it is often reliance on one highly contentious forensic matter, the blood in the silencer here.
 cf. The dna on a bra clasp in Knox/Sollecito, the cartridge case in Arthur Thomas, the shirt spots in Mark Lundy, the two hairs in Scott Watson, the serrated knife in Damien Echols, the blood in the Rav4 in Steven Avery, the bogus blood test in Lindy Chamberlain and so on.
Unfortunately these matters convict in first instance because jurors tend to believe what the police bring to court. In subsequent proceedings the appeal courts start with destination guilty, to preserve the sanctity of the disastrous jury system, and stagger drunkenly backwards to the crime scene cherry picking bits that can formulate a fictional narrative.
However, only one domino needs to be removed to thwart a world record toppling attempt.
Appeal courts, please understand this, and learn to reverse false convictions like this one. You will sleep better.
I don't see how any of the above relates to the Bain retrial, where Dean Cottle's evidence was given extra weight by being read out by the judge, and no medical evidence on Robin's state of mind offered as you implied.

Mark Lundy's case became ever more technical in his retrial, but I am pleased the jurors reached the correct decision that his wife and 7-year-old daughter had been bludgeoned to death with a tomahawk-type weapon, part of the wife's brain tissue sticking to his shirt.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Adam on January 29, 2017, 10:28:PM
I don't see how any of the above relates to the Bain retrial, where Dean Cottle's evidence was given extra weight by being read out by the judge, and no medical evidence on Robin's state of mind offered as you implied.

Mark Lundy's case became ever more technical in his retrial, but I am pleased the jurors reached the correct decision that his wife and 7-year-old daughter had been bludgeoned to death with a tomahawk-type weapon, part of the wife's brain tissue sticking to his shirt.

Sounds grusome. How could Lundy claim to be innocent if part of his wife's brain was found on his shirt ?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on January 29, 2017, 10:40:PM
Sounds grusome. How could Lundy claim to be innocent if his part of his wife's brain was found on his shirt ?
Well the Defence at the retrial argued it could have come from him frying sausages..
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on January 29, 2017, 10:41:PM
.. to no avail. It all got so technical I think everyone got fed up. If you have a spare hour this is a good listen.  https://youtu.be/iwQvI8Eq0mE
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on January 29, 2017, 10:56:PM
I don't see how any of the above relates to the Bain retrial, where Dean Cottle's evidence was given extra weight by being read out by the judge, and no medical evidence on Robin's state of mind offered as you implied.

Mark Lundy's case became ever more technical in his retrial, but I am pleased the jurors reached the correct decision that his wife and 7-year-old daughter had been bludgeoned to death with a tomahawk-type weapon, part of the wife's brain tissue sticking to his shirt.
Steve_UK:

You are now wallowing in an evidence free swamp.
I regret to have to say it, but your opinions are very wrong.
I see no prospect that you will emerge from your straitjacketed beliefs.
I have offered you a triple checked factual account of how Mark Lundy came to be wrongly convicted. This is an account that has been read by few, but here is a review by an exceptional case analyst.

.........................................

That's a fantastic read, very well written, both entertaining and rage-inducing. I actually enjoyed it far more than Karam's book on Bain, which I found a bit of a slog. The whole trial is equally outrageous and horrific, so bad it almost makes the Bain and McDonald police investigations look semi-professional.

1. How the police can withhold evidence like that when they are legally required to provide it to the Defence - why didn't the Defence approach the judge and ask him to direct the police to release the material, at the risk of the Crown being prevented from going to trial? Or did they pretend the material was "lost", or just not even acknowledge it existed? There was no way in the world the Lundy trial was a level playing field.

2. Grantham, Kelly and Ross' gross incompetence and sudden memory loss on the stand are equally infuriating, IMO all three should have been charged with contempt of court, or have been made accountable by some independent body for acting that way in a public trial.

3. The Defence should be shot. Synek's testimony was some kind of awful joke.

I think if the average intelligent New Zealander read that book, they would be shocked. I'm familiar with a lot of the case, and it even shocked me. I sincerely hope one day that the spotlight will be pointed straight at the Police, Crown, and NZ justice system, and that all participants in this awful affair are held to account.

...............................

I can email this shocker of a document to anyone who pms me with an email address. This might interest the people here who understand the Bamber travesty correctly, to see how the colony has managed to concoct an equal outrage.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Adam on January 29, 2017, 11:30:PM
Well the Defence at the retrial argued it could have come from him frying sausages..

No seriously. Did the defence claim deliberate contamination ?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on January 29, 2017, 11:39:PM
No seriously. Did the defence claim deliberate contamination ?
Well it was contentious as to whether it could have been Central Nervous System brain matter or whether Lundy could have got it on his shirt when he fried sausages or cooked a neck of mutton or other meat product. On the radio programme it says how this must have gone over the heads of jurors and even the judge. Lundy did not testify on his own behalf, he didn't come across well anyway and there was always the fact that he had visited a prostitute that night which weighed against him and must have stuck in the jurors' minds.

Was there a technicality as Samson suggests? If you dig deep enough you might always find a procedural irregularity in any trial, but to my mind the correct verdict was reached, though Samson does mention other trials which were a miscarriage of justice.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on January 29, 2017, 11:47:PM
Well it was contentious as to whether it could have been Central Nervous System brain matter or whether Lundy could have got it on his shirt when he fried sausages or cooked a neck of mutton or other meat product. On the radio programme it says how this must have gone over the heads of jurors and even the judge. Lundy did not testify on his own behalf, he didn't come across well anyway and there was always the fact that he had visited a prostitute that night which weighed against him and must have stuck in the jurors' minds.

Was there a technicality as Samson suggests? If you dig deep enough you might always find a procedural irregularity in any trial, but to my mind the correct verdict was reached, though Samson does mention other trials which were a miscarriage of justice.
It is important to realise David Bain and Mark Lundy testified at their first trials.
Scott Watson wanted to but was advised not to. Ewan MacDonald did not, as he had previous form the jury were unaware of. This was an open question in an evidence lecture my daughter attended last year by Elisabeth MacDonald. I raise this because Jeremy Bamber also testified. So did David Tamihere and Arthur Thomas at his first trial, Damien Echols, Amanda Knox and so on.
It is hard to persuade innocent men not to. The only one of the above who I have been unable to categorically clear of the crimes they are accused of  to my satisfaction is Scott Watson.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Adam on January 30, 2017, 12:02:AM
Well it was contentious as to whether it could have been Central Nervous System brain matter or whether Lundy could have got it on his shirt when he fried sausages or cooked a neck of mutton or other meat product. On the radio programme it says how this must have gone over the heads of jurors and even the judge. Lundy did not testify on his own behalf, he didn't come across well anyway and there was always the fact that he had visited a prostitute that night which weighed against him and must have stuck in the jurors' minds.

Was there a technicality as Samson suggests? If you dig deep enough you might always find a procedural irregularity in any trial, but to my mind the correct verdict was reached, though Samson does mention other trials which were a miscarriage of justice.

Getting you're wifes brain on you're shirt while frying sausages. It does happen.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on January 30, 2017, 12:21:AM
Getting you're wifes brain on you're shirt while frying sausages. It does happen.
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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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."
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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..
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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..
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline 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)
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline 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!.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure 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.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline on February 01, 2017, 12:58: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.

That's not an alibi, making sure his mobile signal was registered in another town far enough away from home is an alibi, because it's something that can be proven.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on February 05, 2017, 06:49:PM
Eh!  Are you saying his mobile was registered to another town? Not sure it works like that does it. Isn't it phone masts that know where his phone would have been. Was his phone still where he was supposed to be.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 05, 2017, 07:21:PM
Eh!  Are you saying his mobile was registered to another town? Not sure it works like that does it. Isn't it phone masts that know where his phone would have been. Was his phone still where he was supposed to be.
I think she was just giving a hypothetical example. The problem all these people have (Mark Lundy, Susan May, Sheila Bowler, Sion Jenkins, Jonathan Jones, Jeremy Bamber) is none of them has a credible alibi.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on February 05, 2017, 08:44:PM
I think she was just giving a hypothetical example. The problem all these people have (Mark Lundy, Susan May, Sheila Bowler, Sion Jenkins, Jonathan Jones, Jeremy Bamber) is none of them has a credible alibi.

well he would have had to have been one cool cucumber to have been with a prostitute then drive home and kill. Who in thier right mind would have been up for sex with murder on thier minds.

I'm just not convinced either way on this one. But I certainly do not believe the brain matter evidence, it's nonsense.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 05, 2017, 09:26:PM
well he would have had to have been one cool cucumber to have been with a prostitute then drive home and kill. Who in thier right mind would have been up for sex with murder on thier minds.

I'm just not convinced either way on this one. But I certainly do not believe the brain matter evidence, it's nonsense.
Lundy used to do the trip once fortnightly and it was the only time he was away from the house for an extended period. It's strange that the murders should occur when he purported to be away.

Samson has gone very quiet..
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline on February 06, 2017, 07:06:PM
Eh!  Are you saying his mobile was registered to another town? Not sure it works like that does it. Isn't it phone masts that know where his phone would have been. Was his phone still where he was supposed to be.

Errr no - I was talking about registering signals to masts in another town! He made 3 calls, one early evening, one mid evening and one much later. Seems to me that he wanted to register the calls as an alibi.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline on February 06, 2017, 07:08:PM
well he would have had to have been one cool cucumber to have been with a prostitute then drive home and kill. Who in thier right mind would have been up for sex with murder on thier minds.

I'm just not convinced either way on this one. But I certainly do not believe the brain matter evidence, it's nonsense.

Are you not sure Notsure? Not like you!  ;D ;D

Who would be up for sex with a prostitute? Someone looking for an alibi however, some people get turned on by murder.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on February 10, 2017, 06:29:PM
Are you not sure Notsure? Not like you!  ;D ;D

Who would be up for sex with a prostitute? Someone looking for an alibi however, some people get turned on by murder.

haha I'm jot blooming sure about anything. It's all a misery.

wonder if he had used a prostitute before and if not was he up to the job? If you get my meaning.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 10, 2017, 07:37:PM
haha I'm jot blooming sure about anything. It's all a misery.

wonder if he had used a prostitute before and if not was he up to the job? If you get my meaning.
He killed them for the $500,000 insurance policy.

Bamber killed for the £430,000 plus property assets.

Jonathan Jones killed (allegedly) for the farmhouse, enabling him to move into a Barrett house with his girlfriend.

David Bain killed all his family to inherit the assets.

Sheila Bowler killed (allegedly) her late husband's auntie because her care fees were eating into the inheritance she(Sheila Bowler) wanted to give to her daughter to pay her way through university.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on February 10, 2017, 09:31:PM
He killed them for the $500,000 insurance policy.

Bamber killed for the £430,000 plus property assets.

Jonathan Jones killed (allegedly) for the farmhouse, enabling him to move into a Barrett house with his girlfriend.

David Bain killed all his family to inherit the assets.

Sheila Bowler killed (allegedly) her late husband's auntie because her care fees were eating into the inheritance she(Sheila Bowler) wanted to give to her daughter to pay her way through university.
Steve, it is far from obvious to me why you would take me on with the Lundy case.
I know what happened because I have spent many hours with a private investigator who knows exactly what happened. If you or anyone are interested, pm me an email address and I will send you the document of his findings, 200 odd pages.

Hint, the killer was not Mark Lundy, and not rented by Mark Lundy. He was paid by a creditor of the middle man in the vineyard deal.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 10, 2017, 09:56:PM
Steve, it is far from obvious to me why you would take me on with the Lundy case.
I know what happened because I have spent many hours with a private investigator who knows exactly what happened. If you or anyone are interested, pm me an email address and I will send you the document of his findings, 200 odd pages.

Hint, the killer was not Mark Lundy, and not rented by Mark Lundy. He was paid by a creditor of the middle man in the vineyard deal.
Sorry I don't accept this and I will not be taking you up on the email offer. The only opportunity Lundy had to murder his wife and child and to establish an alibi was his fortnightly business trip to Wellington and it's too coincidental in my opinion that that's when the murders occurred. It's the usual motive of killing for money. There's more about the vineyard deal here.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/66259690/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-focus-on-vineyard-plans
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on February 10, 2017, 11:26:PM
Sorry I don't accept this and I will not be taking you up on the email offer. The only opportunity Lundy had to murder his wife and child and to establish an alibi was his fortnightly business trip to Wellington and it's too coincidental in my opinion that that's when the murders occurred. It's the usual motive of killing for money. There's more about the vineyard deal here.  http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/66259690/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-focus-on-vineyard-plans
In that case I will post a link to a google doc which will require you to wallow deliberately in an evidence free swamp when discussing the case, and you can be like any ise Italian judge declaring the earth is tghe center of the universe.

Meanwhile:
What do you make of this excerpt from Hislop summing up for the defence?

" And it might provide an explanation also, might it not, for the unidentified footprint?  It might, might it not, provide and explanation for the fibres under both Christine and Amber Lundy’s fingernails, inconsistent with Mark Lundy’s clothing?  It might, might it not, be consistent, this impossibility be consistent and provide some explanation as to why it is that Amber Lundy and Christine Lundy have the Y-STR of a male stranger underneath their nails, and that's the consequences of the impossibilities."

You see, Christine was fighting her attacker from a prone position, the daughter woke and tried to drag him from her mum!
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline on February 10, 2017, 11:43:PM
In that case I will post a link to a google doc which will require you to wallow deliberately in an evidence free swamp when discussing the case, and you can be like any ise Italian judge declaring the earth is tghe center of the universe.

Meanwhile:
What do you make of this excerpt from Hislop summing up for the defence?

" And it might provide an explanation also, might it not, for the unidentified footprint?  It might, might it not, provide and explanation for the fibres under both Christine and Amber Lundy’s fingernails, inconsistent with Mark Lundy’s clothing?  It might, might it not, be consistent, this impossibility be consistent and provide some explanation as to why it is that Amber Lundy and Christine Lundy have the Y-STR of a male stranger underneath their nails, and that's the consequences of the impossibilities.

You see, Christine was fighting her attacker from a prone position, the daughter woke and tried to drag him from her mum!

How does that prove he didn't hire someone?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 10, 2017, 11:52:PM
In that case I will post a link to a google doc which will require you to wallow deliberately in an evidence free swamp when discussing the case, and you can be like any ise Italian judge declaring the earth is tghe center of the universe.

Meanwhile:
What do you make of this excerpt from Hislop summing up for the defence?

" And it might provide an explanation also, might it not, for the unidentified footprint?  It might, might it not, provide and explanation for the fibres under both Christine and Amber Lundy’s fingernails, inconsistent with Mark Lundy’s clothing?  It might, might it not, be consistent, this impossibility be consistent and provide some explanation as to why it is that Amber Lundy and Christine Lundy have the Y-STR of a male stranger underneath their nails, and that's the consequences of the impossibilities.

You see, Christine was fighting her attacker from a prone position, the daughter woke and tried to drag him from her mum!
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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 10, 2017, 11:54:PM
How does that prove he didn't hire someone?
I would have thought Lundy would have made sure he had a watertight alibi. He did call on the receptionist at the motel at 7am and request batteries for his razor, but he had all night to do the journey, murder his wife and child and get back to establish an alibi in his own mind.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline 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'?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Caroline 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk 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
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson 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.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 18, 2017, 03:22:AM
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.
That's a very lame excuse, and one Lundy himself never came up with. You only have to look at his face to see how witnessing the death of his daughter in particular has impacted his demeanour, because you see, however meticulously you plan a murder nothing can ever prepare you for the bloody ramifications of the mutilation that follows.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on February 26, 2017, 08:27:AM
That's a very lame excuse, and one Lundy himself never came up with. You only have to look at his face to see how witnessing the death of his daughter in particular has impacted his demeanour, because you see, however meticulously you plan a murder nothing can ever prepare you for the bloody ramifications of the mutilation that follows.
Steve the case is moving fairly quickly now. He will be exonerated soon, and you can follow it by searching the internet.
I post partly to provide information, and also to help move public opinion. This is important for the recording of history, and for the relatives of falsely accused to progress their lives without being shaded by these falsities.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 26, 2017, 01:56:PM
Steve the case is moving fairly quickly now. He will be exonerated soon, and you can follow it by searching the internet.
I post partly to provide information, and also to help move public opinion. This is important for the recording of history, and for the relatives of falsely accused to progress their lives without being shaded by these falsities.
Samson I will reserve judgement for awhile. I have to admit before studying the David Bain case my closest connection with your country was my Daniel Wellington watch. But since reading James McNeish's Mask of Sanity I have come to accept reluctantly the universality of sin and whilst those who perpetrate the most heinous crimes should pay proportionately for their crimes I cannot help but wonder whether New Zealand is a victim like all other Western economies of the harsh welfare cuts and the growing disparity in wealth resulting from them.

In this regard I have developed my own timeline to explain the David Bain murders:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/what-happens-when-you-scrap-the-welfare-state-new-zealand-has-and-its-economy-is-stronger-but-there-1428688.html

and Mark Lundy's crimes:  https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/10/17/welf-o17.html
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on February 26, 2017, 04:39:PM
What is happening samson , the most up to date information I can find is Feb 2016. Is there anything that's happened recently and can you point  me in the right direction.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on March 04, 2017, 03:07:AM
What is happening samson , the most up to date information I can find is Feb 2016. Is there anything that's happened recently and can you point  me in the right direction.
Yes, in fact we had a long meeting yesterday. The defence is in disarray for various reasons. The biggest problem is the retention of one of 3 trial defence attorneys, who is keenly interested in pretending they made no mistakes though the result is a consummately innocent man in jail again.
They actually made catastrophic errors, and it is down to one thing. They accepted the validity of immunohistochemistry, so the crown had a walkover.
The tissue was degraded and dry, when IHC demands fresh formalin preserved tissue. IHC is designed to best select from a range of cancers an organ biopsy might present, where the tissue type is known. The test in this case was totally back to front and illegal in the USA. It is not allowed in criminal forensics, and for an excellent reason, which this case will soon show. This was not brain tissue on a shirt, no it was not, but whatever it was had preservative before it got to the shirt. You get that?
Unfortunately as we know, direct appeals in murder cases are doomed because appeal court judges will do anything, twist any fact or circumstance to validate the decision of 12 rank and often unemployed amateurs.
Unless you would allow a jury to crew an airplane from cockpit to tail, don't trust them to understand science in a case like Lundy. Poor sod, he is doomed unless...we have some inventive ideas.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on March 04, 2017, 04:22:PM
I'm confused in one breath you say he will be exonerated soon and in the next you says he's doomed. Which is it?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Samson on March 04, 2017, 07:28:PM
I'm confused in one breath you say he will be exonerated soon and in the next you says he's doomed. Which is it?
Ask Schrodinger's cat  :)
Seriously I don't know. There are a bunch of private prosecutions for perjury by police and expert witnesses that could theoretically be taken and modern history suggests that would work in New Zealand. There is currently running an intriguing case where a private prosecution is going forward in the high court, by Arthur Taylor versus secret witness C in the David Tamihere case who DID NOT kill two Swedish tourists in 1989. 28 years later it is hot and he will win. This case has become linked because witness C twice offered his services in Lundy trials, and the police tried to use him but decided that was too risky. He is in fact a double killer, and so on. He claimed that Lundy confessed to him in a prison chapel. That case goes to a 2 week jury trial in August, so should dent the fabric of disgraceful complacency in police judicial and political places.
Unfortunately the Lundy cause is deeply unpopular, his own brother changed his name in shame. Like the Bamber case in England, it is in fact the worst miscarriage of justice in New Zealand history,  so worth attention. There is a vast amount of material surrounding a straightforward case, which is the lamentable state these cases descend to. We know pretty well who killed these two, and the reason why is very simple. Money.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 19, 2017, 09:17:PM
Mark Lundy fresh appeal going on now. Wonder what the outcome will be. Still discussing the brain matter. Not enough petrol also being discussed?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 19, 2017, 10:39:PM
Mark Lundy fresh appeal going on now. Wonder what the outcome will be. Still discussing the brain matter. Not enough petrol also being discussed?
The petrol evidence, namely that Mark Lundy should have had more left in his tank had he travelled the miles he declared, is unlikely to be taken in isolation. I agree the brain matter could be one of the points on which the conviction could be overturned, but it would be a travesty of justice if this were to happen.http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/341911/lundy-defence-not-set-back-by-murder-time-crown
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 20, 2017, 03:40:PM
The petrol evidence, namely that Mark Lundy should have had more left in his tank had he travelled the miles he declared, is unlikely to be taken in isolation. I agree the brain matter could be one of the points on which the conviction could be overturned, but it would be a travesty of justice if this were to happen.http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/341911/lundy-defence-not-set-back-by-murder-time-crown

Do you think he’s guilty the. Steve
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: lookout on October 20, 2017, 04:33:PM
It certainly points to him,notsure.

Pity the funeral video wasn't now available then I could have judged his demeanour.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 20, 2017, 04:48:PM
It certainly points to him,notsure.

Pity the funeral video wasn't now available then I could have judged his demeanour.

I think it’s a complete farce. It was central nervous tissue which could have come from animal meat. Christine’s dna would obviously b on his t shirt she washed his clothes and they were married , he’d eaten chill beef the day before and dropped some on his top.

There were hairs found in between Christine’s fingers that are not lunch’s

There was dna that had never been matched to anyone under both Christine and ambers fingernails

There were footprints inside that didn’t match anyone including Lundy

The back patio doors were open at 11pm

There wasn’t enough petrol in the tank

So many things point to a n other

No way did he do this imo
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 20, 2017, 06:54:PM
I think it’s a complete farce. It was central nervous tissue which could have come from animal meat. Christine’s dna would obviously b on his t shirt she washed his clothes and they were married , he’d eaten chill beef the day before and dropped some on his top.

There were hairs found in between Christine’s fingers that are not lunch’s

There was dna that had never been matched to anyone under both Christine and ambers fingernails

There were footprints inside that didn’t match anyone including Lundy

The back patio doors were open at 11pm

There wasn’t enough petrol in the tank

So many things point to a n other

No way did he do this imo
There was a suggestion that Lundy had an accomplice and I'm always suspicious of the person who finds the body. However I think Mark Lundy would have established a more solid alibi for himself had this been the case. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/66011354/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-christine-lundys-brother-accused-of-killings
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 20, 2017, 09:13:PM
A second appeal is progressing as I speak. The Prosecution has made a mess in both trials and the fact that Lundy hired an escort on the night of his wife's murder would not have sat well with female jurors. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/no-miscarriage-justice-prosecution-in-mark-lundys-murder-appeal-say-doubt-over-dna-evidence-used-convict-him
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 21, 2017, 06:31:PM
A second appeal is progressing as I speak. The Prosecution has made a mess in both trials and the fact that Lundy hired an escort on the night of his wife's murder would not have sat well with female jurors. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/no-miscarriage-justice-prosecution-in-mark-lundys-murder-appeal-say-doubt-over-dna-evidence-used-convict-him

I said that a few posts back..

Hiring an escort doesn’t make him a murderer. If you listened to it and read up on it you would have seen  that an expert has carried out the drive and petrol and there wasn’t enough to do it all.

You haven’t said anything about the hairs found on Christine’s hand and the unknowns dna Under both Christine and ambers fingernails
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 21, 2017, 07:06:PM
I said that a few posts back..

Hiring an escort doesn’t make him a murderer. If you listened to it and read up on it you would have seen  that an expert has carried out the drive and petrol and there wasn’t enough to do it all.

You haven’t said anything about the hairs found on Christine’s hand and the unknowns dna Under both Christine and ambers fingernails
No but it suggests that the couple may have drifted apart. I have also read an article where Lundy was a letch at a wine club social function. He had increased their life insurance from $200000 to $500000 shortly before the murders. There were rumours that he was in trouble financially.

I'm also thinking about the murder weapon, probably an axe or tomahawk-style implement. There were flecks of paint found on both victims matching other tools in Lundy's garage, for which only he had a key. There was a bracelet from a jewellery box found in his car, a remnant from a staged burglary. He had also confessed on remand to a fellow inmate which isn't conclusive, but is one more indicator of his guilt.

As far as the DNA is concerned forensics could not rule Lundy himself out as the source. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/269044/police-lundy-told-of-being-%27naughty%27
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 21, 2017, 09:41:PM
unkown dna surely means it not his I mean thry must have his gna on file so if it was his surely they would know.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 21, 2017, 09:45:PM
I said that a few posts back..

Hiring an escort doesn’t make him a murderer. If you listened to it and read up on it you would have seen  that an expert has carried out the drive and petrol and there wasn’t enough to do it all.

You haven’t said anything about the hairs found on Christine’s hand and the unknowns dna Under both Christine and ambers fingernails

was he actually convicted of hiting the escourt and does he admit to doing it.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 21, 2017, 09:48:PM
was he actually convicted of hiting the escourt and does he admit to doing it.
Yes I think that was part of his alibi nugnug, and the Prosecution helped in some ways by their at times incoherent case.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: sandra L on October 21, 2017, 10:23:PM
Sorry - it took me so long to write this post that there have been other posts since - hope this doesn't cause too much confusion!

I don't know enough about the case to decide one way or the other (simply because of lack of time to study it properly). However, the "inability" of the expert to "rule Lundy out" as a contributor to the mixed DNA samples is misleading.

In a mixed DNA sample in which no full profile has been identified, it follows that all of the contributions to that sample are only partial profiles.

Let's say, for example, that at position 2 in his DNA profile, Mark Lundy had the number (or "marker)16, at position 7, he had the marker 23 and at position 9, he had the marker 31. If the numbers 16, 23 and 31 turned up in positions 2, 7 and 9 of the mixed sample, it is true to say that Mark Lundy "cannot be excluded" as a potential contributor. But that's only half the story. Anybody with those numbers at those positions in their DNA profile cannot be excluded as a potential contributor. That is the danger with the combination of mixed samples and "expert speak" - the claim that Mr Lundy "cannot be excluded" is actually quite meaningless - it certainly doesn't mean he was a contributor to the sample, only that he could have been.

What would need to be before the jury to give the statement some sort of context is an indication of how many members (or what percentage) of the general population have a 16 at position 2, a 23 at position 7 and a 31 at position 9. If, for example, it was one in every two, three, or four people, then the claim that Mr Lundy "could have been a contributor" would have to be followed with "but so could every second, or third, or fourth person in the general population."

I have a list of almost 100 DNA profiles from un-related people. 54 of those profiles have the "marker" 9.3 at position 6 - it could, therefore, be said that any one of them "could not be excluded" from a partial profile which had the marker 9.3 at position 6. But that's only a little under 100 samples from people living within an area of 3 square miles - how many more people, within that same area, whose DNA samples were not gathered by investigators, might have had a marker 9.3 at position 6?

Of those, 27 profiles also have the marker 13 at position 1, so from a partial profile with a 13 at position 2 and a 9.3 at position 6, these 27 people "cannot be excluded" as potential contributors - again, how many more people in just a 3 square mile area could have had the same markers at the same positions?

For completion, 19 of them also have the marker 11 at position 9.

That means, in reality, that almost one fifth of my little "population" of 100 samples have three markers in common.

The area of interest in the investigation from where my little population originated was Dalkeith, Mayfield/Easthouses and Bonnyrigg - total population of around 35,000. Since all of the profiles are male, we'd be looking at around 17,500 people - even if fully half of those were far too young or old to be considered possible culprits, we're still looking at just under 9000 people. On the basis of the results from my 100 profiles, we could predict that, if all of those 9000 people's DNA profiles were checked, around 1,800 of them would have those three markers in common.

How convinced would a jury be if the experts were allowed to answer questions about partial profiles honestly? "The accused cannot be excluded from this sample, but within 3 miles of where he lives, in any direction, there are a further 1,799 people who also cannot be excluded." Not quite so convincing then!!!
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 22, 2017, 10:12:AM
No but it suggests that the couple may have drifted apart. I have also read an article where Lundy was a letch at a wine club social function. He had increased their life insurance from $200000 to $500000 shortly before the murders. There were rumours that he was in trouble financially.

I'm also thinking about the murder weapon, probably an axe or tomahawk-style implement. There were flecks of paint found on both victims matching other tools in Lundy's garage, for which only he had a key. There was a bracelet from a jewellery box found in his car, a remnant from a staged burglary. He had also confessed on remand to a fellow inmate which isn't conclusive, but is one more indicator of his guilt.

As far as the DNA is concerned forensics could not rule Lundy himself out as the source. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/269044/police-lundy-told-of-being-%27naughty%27

Good god Steve I can’t quite believe you have said that. All this makes him is unfaithful and a sod. No prior history of abuse or crime, just a sod. I realise you are saying it doesn’t sit well with you but unfortunately you would have to have a lot more than that to convict him. That’s exactly what has happened in the Scott Peterson case and in New Zealand. It’s a disgrace and should never be allowed. Trial by media and public is something I find very difficult to understand and am ashamed that people can act like mobs to turn the justice system into this is a crime imo.

Read again about the insurance it isn’t something that was used against him try reading the website FACTUAL although it’s written by supporters to it’s does give an accurate account of what has been dismissed etc.

I think Sandra has answered your point about the dna
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 22, 2017, 10:13:AM
Sorry - it took me so long to write this post that there have been other posts since - hope this doesn't cause too much confusion!

I don't know enough about the case to decide one way or the other (simply because of lack of time to study it properly). However, the "inability" of the expert to "rule Lundy out" as a contributor to the mixed DNA samples is misleading.

In a mixed DNA sample in which no full profile has been identified, it follows that all of the contributions to that sample are only partial profiles.

Let's say, for example, that at position 2 in his DNA profile, Mark Lundy had the number (or "marker)16, at position 7, he had the marker 23 and at position 9, he had the marker 31. If the numbers 16, 23 and 31 turned up in positions 2, 7 and 9 of the mixed sample, it is true to say that Mark Lundy "cannot be excluded" as a potential contributor. But that's only half the story. Anybody with those numbers at those positions in their DNA profile cannot be excluded as a potential contributor. That is the danger with the combination of mixed samples and "expert speak" - the claim that Mr Lundy "cannot be excluded" is actually quite meaningless - it certainly doesn't mean he was a contributor to the sample, only that he could have been.

What would need to be before the jury to give the statement some sort of context is an indication of how many members (or what percentage) of the general population have a 16 at position 2, a 23 at position 7 and a 31 at position 9. If, for example, it was one in every two, three, or four people, then the claim that Mr Lundy "could have been a contributor" would have to be followed with "but so could every second, or third, or fourth person in the general population."

I have a list of almost 100 DNA profiles from un-related people. 54 of those profiles have the "marker" 9.3 at position 6 - it could, therefore, be said that any one of them "could not be excluded" from a partial profile which had the marker 9.3 at position 6. But that's only a little under 100 samples from people living within an area of 3 square miles - how many more people, within that same area, whose DNA samples were not gathered by investigators, might have had a marker 9.3 at position 6?

Of those, 27 profiles also have the marker 13 at position 1, so from a partial profile with a 13 at position 2 and a 9.3 at position 6, these 27 people "cannot be excluded" as potential contributors - again, how many more people in just a 3 square mile area could have had the same markers at the same positions?

For completion, 19 of them also have the marker 11 at position 9.

That means, in reality, that almost one fifth of my little "population" of 100 samples have three markers in common.

The area of interest in the investigation from where my little population originated was Dalkeith, Mayfield/Easthouses and Bonnyrigg - total population of around 35,000. Since all of the profiles are male, we'd be looking at around 17,500 people - even if fully half of those were far too young or old to be considered possible culprits, we're still looking at just under 9000 people. On the basis of the results from my 100 profiles, we could predict that, if all of those 9000 people's DNA profiles were checked, around 1,800 of them would have those three markers in common.

How convinced would a jury be if the experts were allowed to answer questions about partial profiles honestly? "The accused cannot be excluded from this sample, but within 3 miles of where he lives, in any direction, there are a further 1,799 people who also cannot be excluded." Not quite so convincing then!!!

Thanks Sandra that gives us all a very good idea on how things can be misinterpreted. I think the defence lawyers have a lot to answer for.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 22, 2017, 03:15:PM
Good god Steve I can’t quite believe you have said that. All this makes him is unfaithful and a sod. No prior history of abuse or crime, just a sod. I realise you are saying it doesn’t sit well with you but unfortunately you would have to have a lot more than that to convict him. That’s exactly what has happened in the Scott Peterson case and in New Zealand. It’s a disgrace and should never be allowed. Trial by media and public is something I find very difficult to understand and am ashamed that people can act like mobs to turn the justice system into this is a crime imo.

Read again about the insurance it isn’t something that was used against him try reading the website FACTUAL although it’s written by supporters to it’s does give an accurate account of what has been dismissed etc.

I think Sandra has answered your point about the dna
Well Mark Lundy was on trial, not unknown defendants and the Crown proved its case-twice. The crime was initiated by the classic credit squeeze that affects thousands of married couples and the temptation to kill his wife, claim the insurance and start with a clean slate became too much. His daughter Amber was supposed to be at the girl guides that evening and so out of the killing arena, but the meeting was cancelled. I can't help but read in Lundy's demeanour the horror of the execution of the attack, personal because his wife's face was completely bashed in, then the necessity of killing Amber from behind as she became a witness to the crime.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 22, 2017, 08:05:PM
Well Mark Lundy was on trial, not unknown defendants and the Crown proved its case-twice. The crime was initiated by the classic credit squeeze that affects thousands of married couples and the temptation to kill his wife, claim the insurance and start with a clean slate became too much. His daughter Amber was supposed to be at the girl guides that evening and so out of the killing arena, but the meeting was cancelled. I can't help but read in Lundy's demeanour the horror of the execution of the attack, personal because his wife's face was completely bashed in, then the necessity of killing Amber from behind as she became a witness to the crime.

Yes but some of this information has only just come to light . It was withheld

Steve you seem to make judgements on people’s characters and what other people say about them instead of the evidence
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 22, 2017, 08:22:PM
Yes but some of this information has only just come to light . It was withheld

Steve you seem to make judgements on people’s characters and what other people say about them instead of the evidence
They always say that. Anyway I assume the appeal continues tomorrow so I'll reserve judgement for awhile.

There's a recap of the case here: http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/10/mark-lundy-the-story-so-far.html
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2017, 09:01:AM
Quote
Well Mark Lundy was on trial, not unknown defendants and the Crown proved its case-twice.

Sadly, that's part of the point I was trying to make - Mark Lundy was on trial, but did the evidence prove conclusively that he was the murderer? If not, then the existence of a partial DNA profile, in which some markers coincide with parts of Mr Lundy's profile, means nothing because an unknown person, rather than Mark Lundy, should have been in the dock.

The partial DNA profile and the fact that Mark Lundy was on trial is nothing more than unfortunate coincidence and doesn't prove anything. As for the Crown "proving" its case twice, again, I'll reserve judgement until I know more about the case. What I do know is that it's easy for the prosecution to "prove" any case by omitting certain evidence or information, exaggerating (or lying about) the importance or interpretation of other evidence and weaving together unrelated factors to produce an apparently reasonable narrative. Easier still to do it a second time in the same case because there's time to refine the narrative.

It only begins to unravel when the doctored or omitted information comes to light, and the holes in the narrative make it unreliable. So, from what I've read so far, the amount of time and fuel required to get him there and back again in the suggested timescale simply can't be done, and, even if it could, he had an alibi, the "brain matter" might not be, after all, unidentified DNA on both victims ... those are quite significant anomalies.

The "reasoning" that the hiring of the escort suggests a failing marriage which in turn provides a "motive" (killing his wife for the insurance money) is pure conjecture, with nothing whatsoever to support it. It does, however, deflect attention from the alibi by focussing moral condemnation on a married man using an escort and all the judgemental connotations that invokes.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 23, 2017, 09:37:AM
Sadly, that's part of the point I was trying to make - Mark Lundy was on trial, but did the evidence prove conclusively that he was the murderer? If not, then the existence of a partial DNA profile, in which some markers coincide with parts of Mr Lundy's profile, means nothing because an unknown person, rather than Mark Lundy, should have been in the dock.

The partial DNA profile and the fact that Mark Lundy was on trial is nothing more than unfortunate coincidence and doesn't prove anything. As for the Crown "proving" its case twice, again, I'll reserve judgement until I know more about the case. What I do know is that it's easy for the prosecution to "prove" any case by omitting certain evidence or information, exaggerating (or lying about) the importance or interpretation of other evidence and weaving together unrelated factors to produce an apparently reasonable narrative. Easier still to do it a second time in the same case because there's time to refine the narrative.

It only begins to unravel when the doctored or omitted information comes to light, and the holes in the narrative make it unreliable. So, from what I've read so far, the amount of time and fuel required to get him there and back again in the suggested timescale simply can't be done, and, even if it could, he had an alibi, the "brain matter" might not be, after all, unidentified DNA on both victims ... those are quite significant anomalies.

The "reasoning" that the hiring of the escort suggests a failing marriage which in turn provides a "motive" (killing his wife for the insurance money) is pure conjecture, with nothing whatsoever to support it. It does, however, deflect attention from the alibi by focussing moral condemnation on a married man using an escort and all the judgemental connotations that invokes.

Mark Lundy was in the construction trade. He colour coded his tools with two different colours of paint so they would not get mixed up with other peoples tools on site. This included an axe.

Why is this important? Because paint chippings were found in the wounds of the victims. The same two colours of paint used on his tools. Lundy kept these tools locked away only he had a key. They never found the murder weapon. The room were his tools were kept was found locked.

To believe Lundy innocent you have to believe a random maniac entered the house who had the same two colours of paint on his axe. And Mark Lundy by sheer coincidence happened to be out that night safe from the carnage.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 23, 2017, 07:03:PM
Mark Lundy was in the construction trade. He colour coded his tools with two different colours of paint so they would not get mixed up with other peoples tools on site. This included an axe.

Why is this important? Because paint chippings were found in the wounds of the victims. The same two colours of paint used on his tools. Lundy kept these tools locked away only he had a key. They never found the murder weapon. The room were his tools were kept was found locked.

To believe Lundy innocent you have to believe a random maniac entered the house who had the same two colours of paint on his axe. And Mark Lundy by sheer coincidence happened to be out that night safe from the carnage.

Im surprised by you david. No one knows what the murder weapon was and no tools of his were missing. It wasn’t matched as the exact same paint was it

How do you account for the hairs found on Christine lundys hands

Why wasn’t her laptops examined?
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: sandra L on October 23, 2017, 08:21:PM
Thanks, notsure - those were exactly the questions I was going to ask - was there a missing axe, and were the paint flecks definitively identified as "the same."

David said
Quote
To believe Lundy innocent you have to believe a random maniac entered the house who had the same two colours of paint on his axe. And Mark Lundy by sheer coincidence happened to be out that night safe from the carnage

For me, it's not about "believing" Mark Lundy to be innocent or guilty - I haven't had time to examine the case in enough detail to form an opinion - at the moment, I'm simply interested in the anomalies in the case and what they suggest about the strength of both the prosecution and defence cases.

If Mark Lundy's axe wasn't missing (or any of his tools for that matter), then the paint flecks can't be attributed to any of his known tools. It the paint wasn't the same as the paint known to be used on his tools, then it can't be attributed to any of his tools. That leaves, from David's statement above, the suggestion that a random maniac entered the house and murdered mother and daughter while father was away. Is it possible that "random maniac" knew that a defenceless mother and child were in the house with no-one to protect them?

If what notsure said is correct, I'd be interested to know why David made the claims he did about the axe and the paint - was it a mistake, or was this a contentious issue within the evidence? If either notsure or David have the time, I'd very much appreciate any supported  information about the paint and the tools - I totally understand if that's not possible (I don't have the time myself to go searching for it).

Thanks for allowing me to contribute to the discussion - from what I've seen, it's an interesting case!
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 23, 2017, 08:35:PM
Im surprised by you david. No one knows what the murder weapon was and no tools of his were missing. It wasn’t matched as the exact same paint was it

How do you account for the hairs found on Christine lundys hands

Why wasn’t her laptops examined?

Surprised by me why? I do my research.


Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 23, 2017, 08:49:PM
well if the murder weapon was never found unless one of his tools was missing the none of his tools ould of been the murder weapon if one the tools was missing then lundy is almost certanly guilty but if none of them are then its rather irlvant what he did with his tools.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 06:26:PM
Surprised by me why? I do my research.

We must be looking at different things david.

Mark Lundy was a sink salesman, him and his wife owned the company. He didn’t work in the construction industry and he didn’t take his tools out with him on jobs. There was no axe, not sure where you got this from. No murder weapon was ever identified and they couldn’t be sure what the murder weapon actually was.

The paint you refer to , there was also a dark blue paint in Christine’s hair that didn’t match to any of his tools or anything else in the house.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 06:35:PM
Mark Lundy was in the construction trade. He colour coded his tools with two different colours of paint so they would not get mixed up with other peoples tools on site. This included an axe.

Why is this important? Because paint chippings were found in the wounds of the victims. The same two colours of paint used on his tools. Lundy kept these tools locked away only he had a key. They never found the murder weapon. The room were his tools were kept was found locked.

To believe Lundy innocent you have to believe a random maniac entered the house who had the same two colours of paint on his axe. And Mark Lundy by sheer coincidence happened to be out that night safe from the carnage.

Mark Lundy was convicted solely IMO on the so called brain matter on his shirt. This scientific evidence has never been used before and not since. It was central nervous tissue which is also in meat. Yes Christine and ambers dna was also on his shirt but they lived together.

The other big one was the media and public, he was rather over the top with his emotions and he didn’t come across as people think he should have done. The media and public found him guilty before the trial.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 06:39:PM
Thanks, notsure - those were exactly the questions I was going to ask - was there a missing axe, and were the paint flecks definitively identified as "the same."

David said
For me, it's not about "believing" Mark Lundy to be innocent or guilty - I haven't had time to examine the case in enough detail to form an opinion - at the moment, I'm simply interested in the anomalies in the case and what they suggest about the strength of both the prosecution and defence cases.

If Mark Lundy's axe wasn't missing (or any of his tools for that matter), then the paint flecks can't be attributed to any of his known tools. It the paint wasn't the same as the paint known to be used on his tools, then it can't be attributed to any of his tools. That leaves, from David's statement above, the suggestion that a random maniac entered the house and murdered mother and daughter while father was away. Is it possible that "random maniac" knew that a defenceless mother and child were in the house with no-one to protect them?

If what notsure said is correct, I'd be interested to know why David made the claims he did about the axe and the paint - was it a mistake, or was this a contentious issue within the evidence? If either notsure or David have the time, I'd very much appreciate any supported  information about the paint and the tools - I totally understand if that's not possible (I don't have the time myself to go searching for it).

Thanks for allowing me to contribute to the discussion - from what I've seen, it's an interesting case!

Thanks for that Sandra. I’m working from my phone at the moment so really hard to posts links etc. It’s just reading about the case that I’ve come across this information. It really is an interesting case , hope you find some time at some point to read up on it. Know your busy with the lm case.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 24, 2017, 06:48:PM
We must be looking at different things david.

Mark Lundy was a sink salesman, him and his wife owned the company. He didn’t work in the construction industry and he didn’t take his tools out with him on jobs. There was no axe, not sure where you got this from. No murder weapon was ever identified and they couldn’t be sure what the murder weapon actually was.

The paint you refer to , there was also a dark blue paint in Christine’s hair that didn’t match to any of his tools or anything else in the house.


"The autopsies on brutalised bodies of mother and daughter were performed by my colleague James Pang, an experienced pathologist in Palmerston North. He was able to say that weapon was most probably an axe, and he found multiple flakes of blue and orange paint deeply embedded in the wounds as well as in fragments of skull bone lodged in Christine's head. These were assumed to have come from the murder weapon."

"Mark Lundy's tools were all painted in a distinctive orange and blue. There was a full set of tools in his garden shed, but no axe. Lundy maintained that he didn't own an axe – an assertion contradicted by several of his acquaintances."
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 24, 2017, 06:58:PM
Why would an unknown assailant with malice aforethought risk attempting to open a locked garage in an effort to gain access to Mark Lundy's tools, when most burglars just want to get in and out of a property as fast as possible? Why does the unknown assailant not bring a weapon with him or her if his intention is to kill? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/268475/strike-needed-for-paint-chips,-court-told
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 24, 2017, 07:01:PM
Mark Lundy was convicted solely IMO on the so called brain matter on his shirt. This scientific evidence has never been used before and not since. It was central nervous tissue which is also in meat. Yes Christine and ambers dna was also on his shirt but they lived together.

The other big one was the media and public, he was rather over the top with his emotions and he didn’t come across as people think he should have done. The media and public found him guilty before the trial.

The locations of the victims is also very telling. His wife was found bludgeoned to death in her bed in the master bedroom. And his daughter was found in the hall near the door leading to the master bedroom.

This is entirely consistent with Lundy killing his wife but never planning to murder his daughter. But she woke and identified the killer thus she had to be killed also.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2017, 07:43:PM

"The autopsies on brutalised bodies of mother and daughter were performed by my colleague James Pang, an experienced pathologist in Palmerston North. He was able to say that weapon was most probably an axe, and he found multiple flakes of blue and orange paint deeply embedded in the wounds as well as in fragments of skull bone lodged in Christine's head. These were assumed to have come from the murder weapon."

"Mark Lundy's tools were all painted in a distinctive orange and blue. There was a full set of tools in his garden shed, but no axe. Lundy maintained that he didn't own an axe – an assertion contradicted by several of his acquaintances."



who are you qauting.


who are you qauting.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2017, 07:50:PM
Why would an unknown assailant with malice aforethought risk attempting to open a locked garage in an effort to gain access to Mark Lundy's tools, when most burglars just want to get in and out of a property as fast as possible? Why does the unknown assailant not bring a weapon with him or her if his intention is to kill? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/268475/strike-needed-for-paint-chips,-court-told

but i hardly think hes the only man in newzealand to own a painted object unless its a very rare kind of paint its not daming evdence on its own.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 24, 2017, 07:50:PM
It's the same old story..https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mark-lundy-trial-hears-of-couple-s-mounting-debts-6235780
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 24, 2017, 07:51:PM
but i hardly think hes the only man in newzealand to own a painted object unless its a very rare kind of paint its not daming evdence on its own.
No but I think the point was that it linked the source of the tools to Mark Lundy's garage.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2017, 08:03:PM
No but I think the point was that it linked the source of the tools to Mark Lundy's garage.


well thats pretty daming if true.

and even more so if theres no sighn of forced entry to the garage
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 24, 2017, 09:00:PM

well thats pretty daming if true.

and even more so if theres no sighn of forced entry to the garage

What's even more damning is the lack of any alternative suspects. There is evidence against Lundy and nobody else.

The same year as the murders Lundy increased the life insurance policy on his wife from $200,000 to $500,000. He tried to raise it to one million but the insurance company refused.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 24, 2017, 09:23:PM
What's even more damning is the lack of any alternative suspects. There is evidence against Lundy and nobody else.

The same year as the murders Lundy increased the life insurance policy on his wife from $200,000 to $500,000. He tried to raise it to one million but the insurance company refused.
I'm not sure that's true. The insurance agent recommended the increase to £1 million after they became involved in the vineyard project. Lundy did increase the policy from $200000 to $500000 but he told his brother post-murders it probably came too late to be valid. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=939404
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2017, 09:26:PM
What's even more damning is the lack of any alternative suspects. There is evidence against Lundy and nobody else.

The same year as the murders Lundy increased the life insurance policy on his wife from $200,000 to $500,000. He tried to raise it to one million but the insurance company refused.

that would depend on weather they actually looked for another suspect though.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:35:PM

"The autopsies on brutalised bodies of mother and daughter were performed by my colleague James Pang, an experienced pathologist in Palmerston North. He was able to say that weapon was most probably an axe, and he found multiple flakes of blue and orange paint deeply embedded in the wounds as well as in fragments of skull bone lodged in Christine's head. These were assumed to have come from the murder weapon."

"Mark Lundy's tools were all painted in a distinctive orange and blue. There was a full set of tools in his garden shed, but no axe. Lundy maintained that he didn't own an axe – an assertion contradicted by several of his acquaintances."


Most probably an axe ! But never found and the dark blue paint didn’t match the blue on his tools.

This is the same dr pang that stood up on the stand and said they died d at 7pm unequivocally at that first trial because of their stomach contents then in the second trial moved time of death to between 1am to 5am ( roughly) . This man has been discredited in so many ways and other one parts disagree
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:37:PM
Why would an unknown assailant with malice aforethought risk attempting to open a locked garage in an effort to gain access to Mark Lundy's tools, when most burglars just want to get in and out of a property as fast as possible? Why does the unknown assailant not bring a weapon with him or her if his intention is to kill? http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/268475/strike-needed-for-paint-chips,-court-told

There is absolutely no proof that his tools were used Steve.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:38:PM
The locations of the victims is also very telling. His wife was found bludgeoned to death in her bed in the master bedroom. And his daughter was found in the hall near the door leading to the master bedroom.

This is entirely consistent with Lundy killing his wife but never planning to murder his daughter. But she woke and identified the killer thus she had to be killed also.

Well that would go for whoever killed them. It’s not telling at all except that they were in bed.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: sandra L on October 24, 2017, 09:40:PM
In response to nugnug's post  at 9.26: I was just about to say that, nugnug! It's only "damning" that there were no other suspects if none were actually considered - and then, it's damning on the investigators. (There have been a number of posts since - I'm only just home and trying to keep up!)

Quote
The same year as the murders Lundy increased the life insurance policy on his wife from $200,000 to $500,000. He tried to raise it to one million but the insurance company refused.

This is beginning to sound like the worst criminal mastermind in history! He makes sure he has an alibi by spending the evening with an escort, commits the double murder of his wife and daughter using his own tools, leaving behind distinctively recognisable paint from them on the victims; tools in a locked room to which only he has the key, and in the same year, he ups the insurance cover on his wife to ensure he profits from her death.

He'd have been as well leaving "Mark Lundy was here" notes all over the scene.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:40:PM
It's the same old story..https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mark-lundy-trial-hears-of-couple-s-mounting-debts-6235780

Read the evidence there was not any debt that couldn’t be paid without having to kill his wife. All speculation
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:41:PM
No but I think the point was that it linked the source of the tools to Mark Lundy's garage.

No it did not there is no evidence it was the same paint and none of his tools were missing
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: sandra L on October 24, 2017, 09:46:PM
Most probably an axe ! But never found and the dark blue paint didn’t match the blue on his tools.

This is the same dr pang that stood up on the stand and said they died d at 7pm unequivocally at that first trial because of their stomach contents then in the second trial moved time of death to between 1am to 5am ( roughly) . This man has been discredited in so many ways and other one parts disagree

That's very interesting, notsure. Non matching paint on a possibly missing axe that may have been a murder weapon (or a missing axe that may have been painted with the same paint as the other tools, and therefore would not have left the paint flakes found on the victims, or an axe that wasn't missing because it never existed in the first place) ... hardly rock solid evidence!

Do you know what the justification was for changing the time of death? I think I may have read something about that previously, but don't remember it now.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:49:PM
What's even more damning is the lack of any alternative suspects. There is evidence against Lundy and nobody else.

The same year as the murders Lundy increased the life insurance policy on his wife from $200,000 to $500,000. He tried to raise it to one million but the insurance company refused.

There was evidence of other suspects including Dna under both Christine and ambers nails, Christine clutching a hairs in her hand that were not marks . How did the ge there. The patio door was open at 11pm and Lundy was 2.5 hours away then .

You can’t dismiss these things without considering them
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2017, 09:52:PM
what about his mobile phone records don't they show he was somewhere else at the time.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:55:PM
That's very interesting, notsure. Non matching paint on a possibly missing axe that may have been a murder weapon (or a missing axe that may have been painted with the same paint as the other tools, and therefore would not have left the paint flakes found on the victims, or an axe that wasn't missing because it never existed in the first place) ... hardly rock solid evidence!

Do you know what the justification was for changing the time of death? I think I may have read something about that previously, but don't remember it now.

Well they Couldn’t get the timings to stick and he would have been found innocent if they had stuck to the first trial timings . It would have been impossible for him to make the journey in the time frame, so miraculously they changed the timings so got pang to change his too. That was a no no for me but the jury bought it and found him guilty a second time. He’s always maintained his innocence and is now awaiting judgement on his recent appeal
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 09:57:PM
what about his mobile phone don't they show he was somewhere else at the time.

Oh yes sorry jugs the lungs proved he was still there so another reason he couldn’t have done it
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on October 24, 2017, 10:00:PM
Sorry about my spelling mistakes I’m trying to do two things at once. Not got much more time this evening so will check in again tomorrow.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 24, 2017, 10:00:PM
mind you if there not certan of the time of death the phone records might not prove that.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 24, 2017, 10:28:PM
That's very interesting, notsure. Non matching paint on a possibly missing axe that may have been a murder weapon (or a missing axe that may have been painted with the same paint as the other tools, and therefore would not have left the paint flakes found on the victims, or an axe that wasn't missing because it never existed in the first place) ... hardly rock solid evidence!

Do you know what the justification was for changing the time of death? I think I may have read something about that previously, but don't remember it now.
Well in the first trial the two pathologists, Dr.James Pang and Dr. Gilbert Barbezat, testified that as there was only partial digestion of the Macdonald's meal the victims had bought at 5:38pm it was likely that death had occurred between 7:00pm and 7:15pm. This tallies with eyewitness Margaret Dance, who saw a fat man with a blond wig in the area at that time jogging hurriedly away from the vicinity of the house.

By the time of the second trial the Prosecution had lost its nerve somewhat and changed their story, now saying that the murders occurred after the prostitute had left, "within an hour of 11:45pm" and then driven through the night to kill wife and child. This necessitated at least one pathologist to change his estimated time of death based on stomach contents, which Dr. Pang did, now saying that death could have occurred anytime between the time the Macdonalds meal was bought and 9:00am the next day when the bodies were discovered. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/67418643/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-time-of-death-rethink
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 25, 2017, 03:23:PM
this blows out the water i think.

https://youtu.be/iwQvI8Eq0mE
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 25, 2017, 05:19:PM
this blows out the water i think.

https://youtu.be/iwQvI8Eq0mE
It's very difficult if not impossible to get full facts of these cases. The journalist Bryan Bruce has made two acclaimed documentaries on Mark Lundy and David Bain, but they seem unobtainable for some reason.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 25, 2017, 09:10:PM
they say the testing had never been done before and has never been since that doesn't give me much confidence that it was sound forensics.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on January 10, 2018, 10:09:PM
I have been reading Cynric Temple-Camps book. He is a pathologist that was involved in both Lundy trials.

Mark Lundy has paint fragments that match his tools embedded in parts of wife's bones. And has her blood and brains on his shirt. The very shirt found in his car after the murders.

How people believe this guy is innocent is beyond me.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on January 10, 2018, 10:11:PM
well thats all been explianed here.

https://youtu.be/iwQvI8Eq0mE
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on January 10, 2018, 10:27:PM
well thats all been explianed here.

https://youtu.be/iwQvI8Eq0mE

Its baloney.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on January 10, 2018, 10:55:PM
Its baloney.

its from injustice anywhere you know the website your allways qouting as reliable.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on January 11, 2018, 01:03:AM
its from injustice anywhere you know the website your allways qouting as reliable.

http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=3233&start=600#p191875 (http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=123&t=3233&start=600#p191875)
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on January 11, 2018, 07:00:AM
its from injustice anywhere you know the website your allways qouting as reliable.

I don't ever recall quoting IA as reliable. There are several cases featured on there that I don't believe are MOJs. Darlie Router in particular.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on January 11, 2018, 02:53:PM
I have been reading Cynric Temple-Camps book. He is a pathologist that was involved in both Lundy trials.

Mark Lundy has paint fragments that match his tools embedded in parts of wife's bones. And has her blood and brains on his shirt. The very shirt found in his car after the murders.

How people believe this guy is innocent is beyond me.

prosecution witness says suspect is guilty well that is surprising.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on March 05, 2018, 06:42:PM
Does anyone know what’s happening with this appeal. Haven’t seen anything on it since October last year. So little information on this
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on March 05, 2018, 07:17:PM
Does anyone know what’s happening with this appeal. Haven’t seen anything on it since October last year. So little information on this

you know how long it takes for appeals to be heard.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on March 05, 2018, 08:38:PM
you know how long it takes for appeals to be heard.

Yes the appeal has been heard we’ve just waiting for deciscion but it seems the judges are really taking their time. Thanks nugs
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on March 05, 2018, 09:48:PM
i personally cant see him winning. but you never know.

not allways a good sighn when judges take there time it often means there looking for a reason to reject it.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on March 06, 2018, 09:35:AM
i personally cant see him winning. but you never know.

not allways a good sighn when judges take there time it often means there looking for a reason to reject it.

Yes it wouldn’t surprise me
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 09, 2018, 07:43:PM
Lundy's appeal was dismissed today.

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/lundy-v-r/@@images/fileDecision?r=405.381746405 (http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/lundy-v-r/@@images/fileDecision?r=405.381746405)


Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 10, 2018, 09:52:PM
Lundy's appeal was dismissed today.

http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/lundy-v-r/@@images/fileDecision?r=405.381746405 (http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/lundy-v-r/@@images/fileDecision?r=405.381746405)
I think it's the right decision, though it's strange the Crown got away with a new case second time around (points 115 and 116). In 357 there are some points which must have sowed doubt in some jury members. Personally I think it's written all over his face the carnage of that August night, the sight of those heads horribly maimed by a tomahawk weapon indelibly etched in his mind. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/368259/mark-lundy-s-convictions-for-murder-of-wife-daughter-upheld
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 10, 2018, 10:01:PM
I think it's the right decision, though it's strange the Crown got away with a new case second time around (points 115 and 116). In 357 there are some points which must have sowed doubt in some jury members. Personally I think it's written all over his face the carnage of that August night, the sight of those heads horribly maimed by a tomahawk weapon indelibly etched in his mind. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/368259/mark-lundy-s-convictions-for-murder-of-wife-daughter-upheld


i dont they really presnted a credible motive the motive was suposed to be financial but the maths dont really add up.

of course he could of done it in a fit of tmper but as far as i know he had no history of violence.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 10, 2018, 10:26:PM

i dont they really presnted a credible motive the motive was suposed to be financial but the maths dont really add up.

of course he could of done it in a fit of tmper but as far as i know he had no history of violence.
No that's true. Apparently he had taken out a loan on a vineyard, which he was hoping to cover with his wife's insurance money from her death. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/mark-lundy-trial-hears-of-couple-s-mounting-debts-6235780
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 12, 2018, 05:59:PM
I've finally found the Bryan Bruce video, which examines the case in detail and includes a contribution from Professor Bernard Knight of the Jeremy Bamber trial fame.

. https://youtu.be/6spm3zusUP0
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: handyman on October 13, 2018, 09:27:AM
Looks like he's guilty as charged. The murders could easily have been carried out in the early hours of the morning (30th)
Plus his Ford car, 27 litres of petrol to go a 100ks. And I thought my Ford Falcon was bad on gas.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 13, 2018, 06:59:PM
Looks like he's guilty as charged. The murders could easily have been carried out in the early hours of the morning (30th)
Plus his Ford car, 27 litres of petrol to go a 100ks. And I thought my Ford Falcon was bad on gas.
There's an article here which does express some doubt about the second trial. I never understood the petrol stuff fully- if he filled up from a jerry-can this would put the calculations out. There was also the unidentified male DNA and fibres under Christine and Amber's fingernails, the puzzle as to how the brain tissue came to be on the T-shirt had he worn overalls, there was some different shade of blue paint found on the bodies which the Prosecution couldn't link to the house, the murder weapon and jewellery box which were never found, and the changes the Prosecution made to their case second time around.


I still think he's guilty, mainly because of the insurance money, the timing of the crime when he happened to be away from the house and the unlikelihood of an intruder killing for nothing when most burglars just want to enter and exit a property in the shortest time. I don't know why but I always thought the garage was contiguous to the house so it was revealing in Bruce's film that the tools were located in a locked garage separate from the main house. https://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/documents/uploaded-documents/Lundy_Retrial.pdf
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: handyman on October 14, 2018, 08:51:AM
Quote
This was
supplemented by evidence that Mr Lundy had filled his car with petrol on
the afternoon of 29 August and of fuel consumption when the police drove Mr Lundy’s
car the distance he claimed he had travelled after filling up. The Crown contended
that if he had only travelled the distance he claimed he would have used fuel at the
rate of 27 litres per 100 km, approximately twice the normal rate that might have been
anticipated. On the other hand, his actual fuel consumption was consistent with
the Crown’s case of him travelling at speed to and from Palmerston North.

I presume Lundy filled his car up and paid with a credit card or EFTPOS. Had he filled up using jerry cans and paying by cash the above theory wouldn't exist.
The Brain Tissue possibly got on Lundy's T shirt from his hands/ fingers when he removed his overalls.

Once the time of death relative to the stomach contents had been discredited, it made the Prosecution's case easier.

I never knew there was unidentified male DNA under Amber & Christine's finger nails. If this is true
One theory is that the murders were carried out by a person or persons trying to retrieve a debt.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 14, 2018, 03:11:PM
I presume Lundy filled his car up and paid with a credit card or EFTPOS. Had he filled up using jerry cans and paying by cash the above theory wouldn't exist.
The Brain Tissue possibly got on Lundy's T shirt from his hands/ fingers when he removed his overalls.

Once the time of death relative to the stomach contents had been discredited, it made the Prosecution's case easier.

I never knew there was unidentified male DNA under Amber & Christine's finger nails. If this is true
One theory is that the murders were carried out by a person or persons trying to retrieve a debt.
I do believe the correct verdict was reached, but what a cock-up the Prosecution made of the first trial. The suspicion remains that pathologist James Pang tailored his evidence to what Police wanted. As for Lundy's alibi it only needed one CCTV camera or somebody at the address to spot him and he was finished, as the article states.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 14, 2018, 09:46:PM
The suspicion remains that pathologist James Pang tailored his evidence to what Police wanted.


No he didn't. Pang made a ballsup over the time of death and the prosecution had to create an impossible timeframe around it. Come the second trial the prosecution had the correct timeline.


Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on October 14, 2018, 09:52:PM
As for Lundy's alibi it only needed one CCTV camera or somebody at the address to spot him and he was finished, as the article states.

Lundy has no alibi. His whereabouts from 12:50am to 9:00am are unaccounted for.


So


He is either driving to Palmerston north then returning back to his motel after killing his wife and kid or he is sleeping in the motel the whole night.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 15, 2018, 06:35:PM
Lundy has no alibi. His whereabouts from 12:50am to 9:00am are unaccounted for.


So


He is either driving to Palmerston north then returning back to his motel after killing his wife and kid or he is sleeping in the motel the whole night.
You're almost right. He asked the receptionist at the motel for razor batteries at 7am, though the window of opportunity is still large if you accept the new Prosecution thesis. https://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/mark-lundy-murder-retrial-day-28-2015031912

Another interesting point is that Lundy might well have been seen near the murder scene by lorry driver Nigel Winiata, but his testimony was dismissed by Police before the first trial as they were fixed on the earlier time for the crime. https://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/weekend-herald/20180915/281818579733237
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 15, 2018, 10:56:PM
the motive was suposed to be insurance money now that would explian him killing his wife doesnt explian why he would killl hes kid.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 15, 2018, 11:11:PM
Looks like he's guilty as charged. The murders could easily have been carried out in the early hours of the morning (30th)
Plus his Ford car, 27 litres of petrol to go a 100ks. And I thought my Ford Falcon was bad on gas.

was a time of death ever established.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: handyman on October 16, 2018, 07:37:AM
was a time of death ever established.

No a time of death has never really been established. Some time between buying the McDonalds take away and when the bodies were found, about a 15 hour window.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: nugnug on October 16, 2018, 12:51:PM
No a time of death has never really been established. Some time between buying the McDonalds take away and when the bodies were found, about a 15 hour window.

are so his albi isnt exactly perfect then.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on October 16, 2018, 07:44:PM
the motive was suposed to be insurance money now that would explian him killing doesnt explian why he would killl hes kid.

Amber was killed from behind in the master bedroom. The Prosecution argument was that she heard the disturbance, entered the bedroom then tried to escape. As she recognized the killer she had to be dispatched.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: handyman on September 02, 2019, 09:10:AM
I see the case is back before the Supreme Court. As Lundy's defence team call for a 2nd retrial in a rarely used move challenging the Proviso (about the inadmissable evidence of the brain tissue) provided by the Crown after the retrial. Should make for an interesting outcome.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/115303202/mark-lundys-final-appeal-under-way-in-supreme-court
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on December 20, 2019, 06:06:PM
I see the case is back before the Supreme Court. As Lundy's defence team call for a 2nd retrial in a rarely used move challenging the Proviso (about the inadmissable evidence of the brain tissue) provided by the Crown after the retrial. Should make for an interesting outcome.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/115303202/mark-lundys-final-appeal-under-way-in-supreme-court

Supreme court have dismissed his appeal.

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mark-edward-lundy-v-r-1/@@images/fileDecision?r=84.3735345516 (https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mark-edward-lundy-v-r-1/@@images/fileDecision?r=84.3735345516)
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on December 22, 2019, 02:35:PM
Supreme court have dismissed his appeal.

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mark-edward-lundy-v-r-1/@@images/fileDecision?r=84.3735345516 (https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/mark-edward-lundy-v-r-1/@@images/fileDecision?r=84.3735345516)
The Defence can count itself lucky that it secured a conviction. If Mark Lundy had said he had been frying sausages and Christine had at some point sneezed on his shirt depositing mucus thereon he might just have walked free.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on December 24, 2019, 01:50:PM
The Defence can count itself lucky that it secured a conviction. If Mark Lundy had said he had been frying sausages and Christine had at some point sneezed on his shirt depositing mucus thereon he might just have walked free.

The paint from his tools lodged into the victims bones does not help the frying sausage theory.  :-\
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on December 24, 2019, 04:53:PM
The paint from his tools lodged into the victims bones does not help the frying sausage theory.  :-\
No this would possibly suggest that the murders were a spur of the moment decision.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on December 26, 2019, 10:26:AM
No this would possibly suggest that the murders were a spur of the moment decision.

The murders were planned.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on December 27, 2019, 07:55:PM
The murders were planned.
Yes they were planned inasmuch as they had to take place when he had the alibi of travelling to Wellington. What I meant was they were not as thoroughly researched as they might have been or, for example, he would have bought a new hammer for the purpose and not relied on his own work tools in the garage with paint flecks on them.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: David1819 on December 27, 2019, 09:46:PM
Yes they were planned inasmuch as they had to take place when he had the alibi of travelling to Wellington. What I meant was they were not as thoroughly researched as they might have been or, for example, he would have bought a new hammer for the purpose and not relied on his own work tools in the garage with paint flecks on them.

Or he just didn't understand or know how his tools would leave those clues.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on January 26, 2020, 06:18:PM
who were the lumps of hair found in christines hands. they weren’t marks.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on January 30, 2020, 08:07:PM
who were the lumps of hair found in christines hands. they weren’t marks.
This was interesting notsure and does suggest to my mind that (allegedly) Glenn Weggery, Christine's brother may have committed the murders. I would only say that if he did it was at Mark's request on the understanding that they would share out the insurance money subsequently. However this being the case one would have thought that Mark would have established a better alibi for himself than he did. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11935358
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: handyman on January 30, 2020, 10:10:PM
If it was Christine's brother wouldn't the skin found under Christine's finger nails, the lumps of hair found in her hands be a familial DNA to Christine.
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on January 30, 2020, 10:15:PM
If it was Christine's brother wouldn't the skin found under Christine's finger nails, the lumps of hair found in her hands be a familial DNA to Christine.

Police never took Glenn Weggery in for any forensics.

Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: handyman on January 31, 2020, 01:47:AM
They don't need to, if they test the DNA they'll soon be able to see if it's familar to Christine & Amber.

Similar to here.
Quote
When a search of the DNA database failed to find a direct hit, police ordered a familial DNA test, which identifies similar genetic traits such as those of a relative.

The Herald understands the familial test on the sample identified Reekers' half-sister. Further inquiries from police into her family identified Joseph Reekers, who lived in West Auckland at the time of the murder and had a previous conviction for rape.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10615980
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: notsure on January 31, 2020, 08:49:PM
still the fact remains they didn’t find out whose hair it was and if it wasn’t marks as far as i’m concerned it’s a miscarriage of justice and an unfair trial. blood was found in weggerys bathroom , was that tested. poor bloke will have to do the time . it’s all based on junk science imo
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on August 16, 2021, 07:33:PM
Finally the Bryan Bruce video is back. https://youtu.be/AeZFptBvj7w
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: handyman on February 05, 2023, 12:05:AM
After reading this article, I was reminded of the Lundy case, this happened only a few years before in Palmerston North. Could this have prompted Lundy to hatch his failed plan.
The fact that his whole defence was based around a mistake from the prosecution, was doomed to collapse once the mistake was rectified.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tv-show-recalls-crime-that-shocked-nz/JC3PSCC67AOAG5OYVROTX7CQ2M/
Title: Re: Mark Lundy
Post by: Steve_uk on February 05, 2023, 05:28:PM
After reading this article, I was reminded of the Lundy case, this happened only a few years before in Palmerston North. Could this have prompted Lundy to hatch his failed plan.
The fact that his whole defence was based around a mistake from the prosecution, was doomed to collapse once the mistake was rectified.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/tv-show-recalls-crime-that-shocked-nz/JC3PSCC67AOAG5OYVROTX7CQ2M/
They both had insurance claims as the motive but I think Lundy was pressured by creditors and his crimes had little planning. Just my opinion.