Female cop on Lundy etc
May 6th, 2007 at 8:34 am by David FarrarThe SST has a review of a book by Palmerston North detective Liz Williams called Does This Make My Gun Look Big?
Williams was liasion to the Lundy family after Christine and Amber were found dead. She talks of how she didn’t assume Lundy was guilty at first, but after observing his behaviour at the funeral parlour and crime scene, she thought he definitely was. She labels his behaviour as a B grade movie performance.
She also reveals that one in three rape complaints she has investigated are false or unsubstantiated, and how angry she is for the real victims, whose life is made more difficult by the false complaints.
Related posts:
- False rape complaints
- More on false rape allegations
- Alleged rape victim charged with making a false complaint
- A fake rape register
May 7th, 2007 at 9:46 am
I am very pleased that once again a police officer of high calibre has brought to the publics attantion the very high number of false rape complaints in New Zealand each year.
Vote:Another bonus point for Liz Williams was her ability to keep an open mind, something the officer involved with our case did not do and consequently she was shown up for her poor investigation.
I feel extremely angry for the real victims of rape, but genuine compassion for false complainants that at least have the decency to apologise for all the hurt they cause.
False rape complaints should be treated as a much more serious crime that it currently is and regardless of the person making the complaints history some form of retribution should be necessary.
May 7th, 2007 at 10:08 am
On rape: Just because a rape isn’t substantiated doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
On Lundy: ‘B grade acting’ doesn’t make someone guilty.
The story the police chose to follow (that the murders happened at around 7 in the evening) was, in my opinion, ridiculous, as was one of their main witnesses, a psychic. Not that I’m saying Lundy isn’t guilty.
Linda A
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Agreed, but
a, No evidence, alibis for the defendant, and no DNA are very good indications the complainant is lying and police have fairly good methods at their disposal to detemine the veracity of complaints these days.
Unfortunately publicity has seen false claims of rape sky rocket.
b, The Lundy conviction will always be a very grey area like the Scott Watson conviction was.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 10:49 am
“…how angry she is for the real victims, whose life is made more difficult by the false complaints.”
Why would that be? Surely each case is judged on its own merit, or is that too professional for Liz Williams?
Hi Paula, “No evidence, alibis for the defendant, and no DNA are very good indications the complainant is lying and police have fairly good methods at their disposal to detemine the veracity of complaints these days.”
Can you back that up?
Linda A
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 11:53 am
Firstly, the police are not doing a good enough job of keeping statistics of false rape claims, or in many cases of checking alibis and evidence early enough and this adds to the confusion in court.
Aladin, there is now YSTR testing available in the States which I believe can detect as little as 00.9 of a nanogram of DNA from an individual on another’s items of clothing or furniture, ( there are plenty of studies online about this), and has been used on DNA eighteen years old. It is very often used in paternity testing. It is next to impossible to destroy fully as I understand, and even if a male has breathed on an individual DNA will be detected from the tiniest molecule.
The police used this in our case and on the basis of this innocence was proven beyond doubt, along with changing stories and dates, computer records and phone records plus overwhelming evidence, but they stayed the charges and noone was punished or held accountable for these false allegations of rape as the complainant was deemed too fragile to be responsible, regardless of the fact that our family suffered and were very fragile as well.
Of course with phone and computer records the police are now able to trace records back further than before, and backgrounds of the mentally ill and those who are serial accusers are easier to detect.
The police have said before that the majority of unsubstantiated cases are false, and it is very easy to detect on medical exams these days those who have self-inflicted their injuries, and where there is a history of self-mutilation and para suicide the right course of action is to be highly suspicious.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Lundy may or may not have been guilty, but the Crown case was deeply flawed. It pivoted on evidence and speculations that had a number of major inconsistencies. It was and remains an exceedingly unsafe conviction.
Lundy was judged guilty not on the evidence, but on the widespread prejudice generated against him because of the prostitute aspect. The media played on this irrelevant fact over and over, making a fair trial almost impossible.
Not one of NZ Justice systems better days.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Reliagene have some information on YSTR testing and it is possible to get DNA from a rootless shaft of hair, and recently they have extracted DNA from the remains of a 150 year old human not detroyed by time and elements.
This type of DNA testing is setting free the falsely convicted, and we were quite happy for a DNA sample to be sent to the States for this type of testing to prove innocence as we knew there was a high likelihood the complainant would never have the courage to front up to court leaving our children hurt and confused, so this way we were able to say to the police we told you so even if they did not let the case proceed to trial.
Etiher way unsubstantiated cases fall someone has to carry a huge burden for the rest of their lives and I would like to think that the guilt would eventually be too much for them to harbour.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Doesnt it just make you smile that where false complaints are proved the compliantant then becomes subject to the boo hoo poor thing suffering from an illness etc etc whilst the victim is told to just get on and stop whinging.
Dont see the rapist ever getting that boo hoo treatment.Different strokes for different folks.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
“Lundy was judged guilty not on the evidence, but on the widespread prejudice…”
Certainly not on the evidence of the lost tank of gas that he claimed had been siphoned off from a car with an anti-siphon device down the fuel tank, or the axe missing from his shed adn the shed had not been broken into and was locked, or the victims blood that was on the otuside of the window which was opened to make it look like a burglary, or the piece of brain on his jersey (of yeah, I forgot, that was put there to frame him). Guilty as sin I would say, as did a jury of his peers.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Maybe it was just typical sub-standard reporting, but Liz Williams appears to have revealed her lack of objectivity with her admission about her anger towards False Accusers making it harder for real rape victims, and not mentioning the victims of those false allegations…
Nevertheless, what I found far more interesting was her description of Lundy’s apparent attitude towards (‘”oddly removed” from’) his supposed daughter. Although I didn’t follow the case too closely, she is everywhere reported as his daughter, but could it be that Amber was in fact not his daughter at all? From what I know of being a parent, it doesn’t matter what happens to one’s relationship with the child’s other parent, the parent-child relationship is far stronger.
Could it be that Lundy only found out the truth shortly beforehand? Or could it be Lundy was infertile and Amber was “arranged” with someone else? Seems he also wasn’t the world’s greatest provider. Could it be Christine tormented him with these facts, and incited him to rage? Wouldn’t everyone have a little more sympathy for Lundy then?
But of course, this is New Zealand, where Women are angels, and only men are violent murderers, rapists and torturers.
Or could it be that the Lundy’s were murdered by Amber’s real father, maybe because Christine denied him any rights to see his own daughter. It is all too common for extremely distressed fathers (and mothers) to do this kind of thing. Usually murder-suicide, but maybe this was different. Who knows why, but wouldn’t it all make a lot more sense? Maybe that would put the prostitute thing into its proper perspective as well.
Clearly, it was a violent and frenzied attack, apparently involving rage if not jealousy. Maybe while Mark was seeing prostitutes in Wellington, his wife was up to her own extra-martial activities back home… Or ending them. And maybe Lundy knew what was coming, and left town so as “to be in the clear.”
Even if Lundy did do it, if Amber was really his daughter, why would he kill her too? As the Listener story reveals, if it wasn’t for the shirt, he would not have been convicted. And the car trip thing is a very clever stunt. Clearly then, for the most part, his planning and execution were near perfect. So are we supposed to believe he bungled it on the night and allowed Amber to witness him in the act, and had to eliminate her as well?
I don’t believe it. It just doesn’t add up.
It all seems like just another case of the NZ “Justice” system on just another ordinary day!
The Crown case just seems far too simplistic to be true, and so reminiscent of the whole Arthur Allen Thomas fiasco. The shirt here sounds just like the Thomas “bullet casing”…
I don’t believe Lundy is “pure and innocent”, but maybe he also isn’t the actual murderer. Maybe he did a lot of (bad, B-grade) acting because the truth is they were estranged and he thought he had to pretend he loved her to avoid suspicion, but if they were estranged, why kill her? For the insurance money???
If he didn’t love her, why would he make such a frenzied attack? Because he hated her! WHY?
There has to be some powerful mitigating factor somewhere. And even if he paid to have it done, he’s still not the murderer.
Just like the Thomas case, there has to be a lot more to this than has been revealed so far.
The Liz Williams story is currently here for those interested: Link
And the NZ Listener story is here: Link
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Maybe it was just typical sub-standard reporting, but Liz Williams appears to have revealed her lack of objectivity with her admission about her anger towards False Accusers making it harder for real rape victims, and not mentioning the victims of those false allegations…
Nevertheless, what I found far more interesting was her description of Lundy’s apparent attitude towards (‘”oddly removed” from’) his supposed daughter. Although I didn’t follow the case too closely, she is everywhere reported as his daughter, but could it be that Amber was in fact not his daughter at all? From what I know of being a parent, it doesn’t matter what happens to one’s relationship with the child’s other parent, the parent-child relationship is far stronger.
Could it be that Lundy only found out the truth shortly beforehand? Or could it be Lundy was infertile and Amber was “arranged” with someone else? Seems he also wasn’t the world’s greatest provider. Could it be Christine tormented him with these facts, and incited him to rage? Wouldn’t everyone have a little more sympathy for Lundy then?
But of course, this is New Zealand, where Women are angels, and only men are violent murderers, rapists and torturers.
Or could it be that the Lundy’s were murdered by Amber’s real father, maybe because Christine denied him any rights to see his own daughter. It is all too common for extremely distressed fathers (and mothers) to do this kind of thing. Usually murder-suicide, but maybe this was different. Who knows why, but wouldn’t it all make a lot more sense? Maybe that would put the prostitute thing into its proper perspective as well.
Clearly, it was a violent and frenzied attack, apparently involving rage if not jealousy. Maybe while Mark was seeing prostitutes in Wellington, his wife was up to her own extra-martial activities back home… Or ending them. And maybe Lundy knew what was coming, and left town so as “to be in the clear.”
Even if Lundy did do it, if Amber was really his daughter, why would he kill her too? As the Listener story reveals, if it wasn’t for the shirt, he would not have been convicted. And the car trip thing is a very clever stunt. Clearly then, for the most part, his planning and execution were near perfect. So are we supposed to believe he bungled it on the night and allowed Amber to witness him in the act, and had to eliminate her as well?
I don’t believe it. It just doesn’t add up.
It all seems like just another case of the NZ “Justice” system on just another ordinary day!
The Crown case just seems far too simplistic to be true, and so reminiscent of the whole Arthur Allen Thomas fiasco. The shirt here sounds just like the Thomas “bullet casing”…
I don’t believe Lundy is “pure and innocent”, but maybe he also isn’t the actual murderer. Maybe he did a lot of (bad, B-grade) acting because the truth is they were estranged and he thought he had to pretend he loved her to avoid suspicion, but if they were estranged, why kill her? For the insurance money???
If he didn’t love her, why would he make such a frenzied attack? Because he hated her! WHY?
There has to be some powerful mitigating factor somewhere. And even if he paid to have it done, he’s still not the murderer.
Just like the Thomas case, there has to be a lot more to this than has been revealed so far.
The Liz Williams story is currently here for those interested: Link
And the NZ Listener story is here: Link
Vote:May 8th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Amber was Mark Lundy’s daughter, this fact was determined by the autopsy.
Linda A
Vote: