Lundy gets a Privvy Council appeal

February 14th, 2013 at 8:01 am by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

has been granted a hearing in front of the to appeal his conviction for murdering his wife and daughter.

The three-day hearing will begin in London on June 17, his lawyer David Hislop, QC, told RadioLive this morning.

Lundy is serving a life sentence with a non-parole period of 20 years after a jury found him guilty of killing his wife Christine and daughter Amber, 7, in a frenzied attack in their Palmerston North home in August 2000.

Two years later he was sentenced to a minimum of 17 years, but that was increased by the Court of Appeal after both Lundy and the prosecution appealed.

Everyone is innocent it seems. I wonder if the same totally unknown anonymous person managed to kill the Lundys, Ben & Olivia plus the Swedish tourists.

It is also understood that Lundy’s previous legal team of Wellington lawyer Christopher Stevenson and Keith Becker, now based in Sydney, were to have appealed on the basis of discrediting brain or spinal tissue found on one of Lundy’s shirts during the police investigation.

Having your dead wife and child’s brain tissue on your shirt was fairly damning evidence. That will be the key to the appeal.

Tags: ,

105 Responses to “Lundy gets a Privvy Council appeal”

  1. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    The late Greg King got a Privy Council hearing for John Barlow. Barlow’s conviction still stands.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thedavincimode (6,131 comments) says:

    Good one. I get brain tissue on my clothes every other day of the week. As you do. Lord knows where it comes from.

    And apropos of such matters, how will this now get turned into a B*** thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. MT_Tinman (2,793 comments) says:

    I hope Mr Lundy is paying for this.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,131 comments) says:

    Tinman

    That’s your Tui’s right there.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. AG (1,727 comments) says:

    Having your dead wife and child’s brain tissue on your shirt was fairly damning evidence. That will be the key to the appeal.

    If, indeed, it is brain tissue. The issue seems to be that there is one forensic scientist from the US who claims to be able to detect brain tissue, and quite a number of scientists who claim his methods are dodgy. And seeing as none of us are forensic scientists, our views on this issue aren’t really all that relevant.

    On the other hand, we CAN drive a car. So we can all talk about drive times at length … .

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    Did they tell you the name of the game, boy?
    It’s called riding the gravy train.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Parlyguy (22 comments) says:

    “…as none of us are forensic scientists, our views on this issue aren’t really all that relevant.”

    Yeah, but speculation, pontification and wild ass guessing is so much fun…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. hamnidaV2 (247 comments) says:

    Good News – I can you this for sure – There is NO way of driving from Petone to Palmy in hour and seven minutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. thedavincimode (6,131 comments) says:

    Yeah, but speculation, pontification and wild ass guessing is so much fun…

    Absolutely. In fact this blog would have its traffic reduced by 95% without it.

    AG

    As an expert on pretty well everything, it seems remarkable to me that there is any issue around identification of brain tissue. It certainly looks distinctive on a plate.

    Does it become problematic when dealing only with minute traces?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Thank you for canning that for us Hamwit, up to your usual standard.

    He didnt, and youre right, its not possible. The timings were loosely based on cell site in and out bound, which is tenuous at the very best.

    Dont have an opinion either way, but you cant convict someone for murder just because they are not a very nice person. Thankfully our justice system allows for appeals, no matter what personal opinions bush lawyers hold :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    Having your dead wife and child’s brain tissue on your shirt was fairly damning evidence. That will be the key to the appeal.

    That MAY be key to the appeal. There is a general rule that some minor miscarriage of justice (i.e. justice getting something wrong) can’t overturn a conviction if whatever it was could have made no difference (i.e. he would clearly have been convicted anyway). If so, such evidence, if accepted, may be key.

    An exception to this is unfair trial. If the trial was unfair, it doesn’t matter how strong the evidence was. The right to a fair trial is absolute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    If the material isn’t brain tissue then what sort of tissue is it and how did the forensic boffins extract Christine and Amber’s DNA from it?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    On the other hand, we CAN drive a car. So we can all talk about drive times at length … .

    Well, we could but it wouldn’t get us very far. Lundy had plenty of time to drive to Palmy after his nocturnal visit from a prostitute. Of course, that wasn’t the Crown case. I think Lundy deserves a new trial, but I am firmly convinced he is guilty. I recall seeing part of his police interview when police put it to him that he committed the crime. He looked dumbfounded. I find it hard to believe that an innocent person would react in the way he did…he looked like a possum caught in headlights.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    Maybe they should give Lundy a new trial – he is a better actor than David Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Mark Unsworth (39 comments) says:

    the drive time defence was totally destroyed on that TV show.The need for the speed ( so to speak ) came from a coroner estimating how long it would take for a big mac to break down in the stomach .The answer is that it is different for each person -not rocket science I would have thought .With a wider time allowance on that,the drive time would have been very easy for Lundy
    A question I always always ask myself,as I did in the last big Manawatu murder last year .Who else could have done it ?

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “An exception to this is unfair trial. If the trial was unfair, it doesn’t matter how strong the evidence was. The right to a fair trial is absolute.”

    It would be great if I could get a fair trial in the Civil Court opposing a former lawyer who big noted how he used to drink with judges and prosecutors after a trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Lundy’s woeful performance at the funeral of his wife and daughter didn’t help his cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Maybe they should give Lundy a new trial – he is a better actor than David Bain.

    Really, Chuck? I think they’ve both given B-grade performances.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Nick K (919 comments) says:

    A question I always always ask myself,as I did in the last big Manawatu murder last year .Who else could have done it ?

    Robin Bain.

    Lundy was on his paper run.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “Really, Chuck? I think they’ve both given B-grade performances.”

    Ronald Regan was a B grade actor.

    Lundy was a D grade actor and David Bain was an E grade actor.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Mike White from North and South magazine wrote a detailed article about the case in 2009. He quoted prosecution expert witness, Rodney Miller, who identified brain tissue on Lundy’s shirt:

    “Those who are familiar with my work know that there are few immunohisto-chemists on the planet that go through the trouble that I do to ensure the accuracy of my results. That is one of the reasons I have been so successful as a consultant to other pathologists. For that reason I can say with 100 per cent 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 naive or unwilling to believe the truth.”

    Hmmm those comments, which hint at arrogance, are not what I would expect from any scientist.

    http://www.lundytruth.com/files/NS-lundy.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    Lundy’s hammy acting had the fatal flaw that he didn’t always remain in persona. He switched on and off so blatantly that some reporters felt the need to censor their reporting for fear of compromising his right to a fair trial.

    David Bain wasn’t acting. He was generally strange and weird during his first trial. The normal persona he now has is the result of prison knocking out the weirdness out of him, one of the few occasions in which prison can be said to have worked in rehabilitating someone.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    Hmmm those comments, which hint at arrogance, are not what I would expect from any scientist

    You don’t know many scientists then. Arrogance is a common flaw among them.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    DPF:
    Everyone is innocent it seems. I wonder if the same totally unknown anonymous person managed to kill the Lundys, Ben & Olivia plus the Swedish tourists.

    I agree Lundy looks as guilty as sin, but DPF that above is a pretty friggen loose comment IMHO!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    HamnidaV2:
    Good News – I can you this for sure – There is NO way of driving from Petone to Palmy in hour and seven minutes.

    :lol: Actual lol – they are AWESOME fast driving roads all of the way, and this was at night with little traffic around wasn’t it?

    ALL you would need to accomplish that is some reasonable driving skills, a car with a bit of power (Lundy’s Falcon would have been totally adequate) and the kind of disregard for cops & speed cameras that I imagine would probably come pretty naturally to you if you’d just murdered your wife & kid with an axe…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Mark Unsworth (39 comments) says:

    Nick K -Fantastic -am still laughing

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Jack5 (4,230 comments) says:

    Freudian slip in DPF’s heading: “Lundy gets a Privvy Council appeal”

    Australian definition of a privvy: an outhouse serving as a toilet; or a toilet located in a small shed outside a house or other building; outhouse.

    Many people think that’s where Lundy should get a hearing, rather than at the Privy Council.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. peterwn (2,939 comments) says:

    What is worrying is that they may grant him a re-trial – this would be a ‘victory’ as far as he is concerned. A straight out acquittal would be very unlikely although Corrections would presumably be on standby to swing the prison gates open in the middle of the night if that happened. At any re-trial there are likely to be missing exhibits, ‘gaps’ in police work, etc which the defence would exploit. Jurors may well think ‘he has been in the slammer long enough, might as well find him not guilty’. Then there will be the compensation issue all over again.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Tauhei Notts (1,511 comments) says:

    Could somebody please advise how many taxpayer dollars are to be used on this exercise.
    It has been long argued that accountants know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
    I know the value of this exercise.
    Now I want to know the cost.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Tauhei – why?

    Either there is grounds for an appeal to the PC, or there is not.

    Sure we have to fund the overall justice system somehow. But I don’t see how the cost of doing justice is relevant in individual cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    Totally agree with the above. We must be the richest country in the world to allow all these appeals, all these lawyers, all these high-priced judges – all at the taxpayers expense.

    And how is it that no one is ever guilty? Mark Lundy, David Bain, Scott Watson? No one ever did it.

    Basically all you have to do is maintain your innocence year after year until someone takes up your case and gives you an appeal to some court where they find you not guilty. And you can get away with murder.

    I am a big fan of capital punishment. It’s in the Bible. It means that justice is done and seen to be done. And we don’t have to have the spectacle of Mark Lundy, who brutally murdered his wife and daughter, proclaiming his innocence year after year.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Am pretty convinced that Lundy is guilty and hoping the PC don’t quash the conviction. I didn’t always believe this and don’t know about BRD, but strongly believe due to the strong motive and the brain tissue and evidence of paint flecks indicating the weapon came from his garage along with the Nigel Latta episode probably convinced me. The arranging the alibi with the prostitute also looks sus, A Napier mans horrific crime went unsolved for 15 years because he had an ‘alibi’ and this one looks similar IMO.
    If he does get a retrial I think he would probably walk as not hard for a good defence lawyer to find ‘reasonable doubt’ am hoping this doesn’t happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. redeye (626 comments) says:

    Totally agree with the above. We must be the richest country in the world to allow all these appeals, all these lawyers, all these high-priced judges – all at the taxpayers expense.

    And how is it that no one is ever guilty? Mark Lundy, David Bain, Scott Watson? No one ever did it.

    You want to put a price on justice? Blame those bringing the prosecutions if you want someone to blame. If Bain had of been prosecuted correctly then none of that cost would have occurred in my view.

    Bit rich to lump Watson in with these others. Any fair reading of that case would suggest a wrongful conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    DPF
    ‘Everyone is innocent it seems. I wonder if the same totally unknown anonymous person managed to kill the Lundys, Ben & Olivia plus the Swedish tourists.’

    Innocent until proven guilty, all these cases need to be decided on there individual merits certainly significantly more on Lundy than Watson (how can anyone can think that a guilty verdict is justified here? case is a joke) or Tamihere (Don’t have a strong view on this one, not proven to me, have just finished ‘Missing Pieces’ by Ian Wishart which is a good read despite my views of some of Ian’s previous literature and conspiracy theories).
    Not a very good argument David

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    I remain open-minded about Lundy. A lot of the Crown case simply doesn’t add up. Doesn’t seem to me to be as clear cut as the Bain case.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. AG (1,727 comments) says:

    @thedavincimode:

    As an expert on pretty well everything, it seems remarkable to me that there is any issue around identification of brain tissue. It certainly looks distinctive on a plate.

    Does it become problematic when dealing only with minute traces?

    As I understand it (based on second-hand accounts of the trial issues) – yes. The scientist who gave evidence for the prosecution (Rodney Miller) claims to have a test that can identify brain tissue in samples too small/degraded to identify using “standard” techniques. A lot of other forensic scientists think his method is highly dodgy and cannot be relied on. But, as I also understand it, his claims about the validity of his testing methods weren’t challenged at trial (i.e. the defence accepted the material was brain tissue, but claimed it came about as the result of contamination in the lab).

    @Mark Unsworth,

    The need for the speed ( so to speak ) came from a coroner estimating how long it would take for a big mac to break down in the stomach .The answer is that it is different for each person -not rocket science I would have thought .With a wider time allowance on that,the drive time would have been very easy for Lundy.

    I don’t think that’s quite right. The “need for speed” is to fit into the time window between Lundy’s last use of his cellphone in Wellington and the prostitute arriving at his hotel room. The issue of the food in the stomach goes to exactly when Christine was killed – was it early enough that it could fit into this time window, or was it later (when Lundy has an alibi from the prostitute).

    @Scott,

    And how is it that no one is ever guilty? Mark Lundy, David Bain, Scott Watson? No one ever did it.

    How about because, in the three cases you’ve mentioned, there are reasonable grounds to question whether the jury delivered the correct verdict … unlike in the literally hundreds of murder convictions over the past decade where there is no challenge to the result? Could it not be possible that, despite the safeguards we build into our justice system, there still are occasional false positives?

    As for capital punishment being in the Bible … can you point me to the chapter and verse where Jesus endorses it? I can’t seem to find it just at the present.

    Oh – and one last point … Lundy’s lawyer was on the radio this morning. Apparently he’s taking this case pro bono. And we don’t pay for Privy Council judges. Britain does.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    Scott – I think Saudi Arabia has that system.

    No appeals, as soon as the court finds you guilty, you’re guilty. Nobody wants to hear about how the cop was mistaken or there’s other evidence exonerating you that was supressed. Off with your head. Quick. Simple. Cheap.

    God help us all if you Christian Taliban types ever come to pre-eminence in this country…

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    BlairM @ 11.41
    You have a pretty naive & shallow understanding of the Bain case if you think its ‘clear cut’, am wondering if Lundy does get acquitted (don’t think he should) then whether or not we will get a ‘Justice for Amber & Christine’ hate campaign like what the witch sniffers are currently running on the Bain case, unlikely to be Kent as he will be likely broke by the end of this current one!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    The speed Lundy drove from Petone/Palmerston is a non issue, and a red herring.

    The question arose because an incompetent pathologist incorrectly calculated the time of death due to the
    digestive state of the stomach contents. He failed to factor into his calculation the fact that Mrs Lundy had also consumed a large bottle of soft drink with the meal.

    Consuming liquid (especially a litre or more ) with a meal greatly slows the rate of digestion, this pathologist either did not understand that or was not asked and for some reason and the jury were not informed of this. Thus they mistakenly
    took that incompetants word as to the time of death as fact.
    (an elementary fact now confirmed by FBI scientists)

    This incompetant pathologist has as much to answer for as does the incompetant police officer who failed to secure the
    crime scene at the Bain massacre and allowed 18 people to tramp through the house and all over the evidence before it finally dawned on him to do his job.

    Not to mention the incompetant DSIR crime scene inspector who failed to take a swab of either David or Robin Bains hands in order that a simple GSR (gunshot residue test) could have shown who fired the 22 and saved New Zealand from years
    of angst.

    By the way, i wonder who stole the chocolate labrador dogs the morning Scott Guy was murdered.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    a simple GSR (gunshot residue test) could have shown who fired the 22 and saved New Zealand from years of angst.

    Not necessarily. A “simple” GSR may have proved very little. Robin may have had gunshot residue on him but that wouldn’t prove he killed himself. Moreover, David washed his hands at least once and probably twice.

    http://forensics4fiction.com/2011/07/11/gunshot-residue-gsr-tests-what-do-they-really-prove/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. AG (1,727 comments) says:

    Oh God.

    This IS becoming another thread on you-know-who.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Actually, Robin and David Bain were both tested for gunshot residue. Neither tested positive.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2307272/No-gunshot-residue-found-on-Robin-Bain

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    They should have Lundy vs Bain in the next fight for life.

    The loser goes back to jail after the fight.

    Case closed.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    This is ridiculous. Any appeal to the Privy Council is supposed to be made “within a reasonable time”. How the Hell is 11 years since the verdict, “within a reasonable time”?

    Thank God the Privy Council days are numbered and that this is one of the last (if not the last) cases remaining eligible for PC review.

    I didn’t like the loss of access to the PC for years. Now I wish the PC would just go away and stay out of NZ affairs, meddling paternalistic pricks.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Bugger off Bainers. This is NOT a Bain thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (8,994 comments) says:

    I didn’t like the loss of access to the PC for years. Now I wish the PC would just go away and stay out of NZ affairs, meddling paternalistic pricks.

    :lol: You make it sound like the PC are swooping in uninvited, knocking on our doors and saying Good Day kind Sir, do you have a moment to talk about Mr Mark Lundy?

    I think Lundy’s lawyer has to make a pretty strong case before we go cap in hand to the PC requesting their help…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Yes, RRM, and the PC has every right (and probably responsibility) to say that “Eleven years after the verdict, is not within the necessary “reasonable time”” and thus to say “So bugger off”.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. metcalph (1,293 comments) says:

    The scientist who gave evidence for the prosecution (Rodney Miller) claims to have a test that can identify brain tissue in samples too small/degraded to identify using “standard” techniques.

    Are we actually talking about the same trial? The Lundy stains on the shirt were fairly significant in size.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Remember RRM, the corresponding time for a civil matter to be appealed to the Privy Council was “three weeks” from the decision being reviewed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    < The Lundy stains on the shirt were fairly significant in size

    The alleged brain tissue wasn't. From the Mike White article I linked to above:

    This polo shirt was in an open suit carrier with other clothes and miscellaneous items on the back seat of his car when police intercepted him on Wednesday, August 30. Nearly two months later, ESR scientist Björn Sutherland examined it with a bright light and found two faint stains, one on the left sleeve near the shoulder seam and another on the left-hand chest pocket, which he suggested had blood in them. He wet the sleeve stain and pressed it against a slide to make a sample.

    The two stains were then cut from the shirt and sent for DNA testing. This involved rinsing the stains with water, and both tests showed high probability of Christine’s DNA. This on its own couldn’t prove anything – her DNA might have got there if she gave him a hug or put away his shirt. The slide taken by Sutherland was shown to a number of doctors and several suggested it might contain a few cells found only in brain or spinal-cord tissue. However, because the material on the slide was “scanty” and “shrivelled up”, as one ex- pert put it, and “suboptimally preserved”, as another described it, it wasn’t definite it was brain tissue. Grantham put out an international call to help identify the tissue, including approaches to the FBI and the UK Home Office, but nobody believed testing would be successful on the samples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    ‘Nearly two months later, ESR scientist Björn Sutherland examined it with a bright light and found two faint stains, one on the left sleeve near the shoulder seam and another on the left-hand chest pocket, which he suggested had blood in them.’

    Amanda Fox, Watson and Thomas new searches or re-searches, of already gathered evidence = MOJ. Amanda Fox dna on her bra, Watson hairs on a blanket that had already been examined, Thomas cartridges in an already searched flower bed,
    Bjorn Sutherland making a break through two months later just when it was needed – but what did he really find?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. thedavincimode (6,131 comments) says:

    AG

    Thanks, but please don’t use the G** word. It seems to cause a lot of trouble here.

    If the material isn’t brain tissue then what sort of tissue is it

    Possibly pie stains, particularly if he inhaled his daily 1/2 dozen quota on the cannonball run to Palmy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dirty Rat (377 comments) says:

    AG @8.23am

    And Dime can attest to the behaviour of hookers too

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Dirty Rat (377 comments) says:

    The discovery of the watch on the deceased and not Tamihere, and something fishy about Scott Watson

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    What we need in NZ,is a specialist team(s) of forensic experts who are completely independent of the police. This will take the pressure off the police (by the public), to make an arrest, particularly where there is intense, public interest in the crime. There is no better recent example of this then the Hope/Smart murders, where Pope felt the intense pressure of the public and fitted Watson up to take the fall. Worse, a prejudiced, sick old judge also felt the pressure, and combined with Watson’s pathetic defence counsel, saw Watson incarcerated for a crime he did not, and could not have committed. For the record, I understand there are a number of judges in NZ whom privately believe that Watson’s conviction is unsafe, but not one will stick their had above the parapet and says so publicly. Sad that in NZ, we no longer have judges of the esteem and calibre of the likes of the late and great, Justice Mahon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    The bastard Lundy sold me two dodgy ceramic kitchen sinks. The third one was OK. As far as I know still holding water in my old house.

    Course the fat shortarse bastard is guilty.

    Never trusted the fucker even when he turned up to inspect them and promised me the world. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    ‘ESR scientist Björn Sutherland examined it with a bright light and found two faint stains, one on the left sleeve near the shoulder seam and another on the left-hand chest pocket, which he suggested had blood in them.’

    Of course Bjorn had a ‘bright’ light and found 2 ‘faint’ stains which he ‘suggested’ had blood them, take out ‘bright’, ‘faint’ and ‘suggested’ and it looks like Lundy gets a retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    His kitchen sinks were dodgy and he was a slimy little bastard N-NZ.

    I judge folk on how I see them. You can quote all the lawyer speak you like but that arsehole is as guilty as sin.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    Johnboy..

    Like you I want this fat bastard to be guilty. The problem I have is that time the cops say he drove from Petone to Palmy and back again. It simply cannot be done.

    Now, I suspect this is more down to piss poor police work than actual fact. I am sure the prick did it and I know it took longer than the time the cops said it did to make that trip, I just wish the cops would get their act together

    Oh…and as for Watson, I have said it before, I simply don’t care if he is guilty or not, the bastard is in the right place. As a result of that the public are a lot safer.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Thanks for the divine ‘intervention’ JB, however I was writing about divine ‘invention” something not foreign to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    “By the way, i wonder who stole the chocolate labrador dogs the morning Scott Guy was murdered.”

    McDonald has already admitted to doing that you idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    big bruv (11,048) Says:
    February 14th, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Oh…and as for Watson, I have said it before, I simply don’t care if he is guilty or not, the bastard is in the right place. As a result of that the public are a lot safer”

    You must be Dick Heron’s brother

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    So when the ‘certainty’ of the dna evidence falls over, as it appears it will, the mad dash car drive also falls over. The dna ‘evidence’ backed up the seemingly impossibility of the rally drive, so it looks like tat ta to the case against Lundy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Johnboy (13,424 comments) says:

    Not if you once bought one of his fuckin useless kitchen sinks N-NZ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Okay, so his kitchen sinks might not have been up to scratch, or even scratched all over. He might have loved a lamb pie, or 15, or paid a few hard earned dollars to push himself up against a comfortable ewe some where, but I bet his sinks were guaranteed till you paid over the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. BlairM (2,266 comments) says:

    Didn’t Bryan Bruce come up with a theory that Lundy could have done it AFTER he bonked the prostitute? Can anyone enlighten?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    Johnboy (9,799) Says:
    February 14th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
    —————————–

    Does this mean that you would like to see the quality of the product a person sells, becoming a determining factor in murder trials?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Elaycee (4,085 comments) says:

    @BlairM:

    Didn’t Bryan Bruce come up with a theory that Lundy could have done it AFTER he bonked the prostitute? Can anyone enlighten?

    Yup – Bryan Bruce agreed that the scenario of a 3 hour round trip including a double murder, was unlikely. So he focused on the time of death estimated by a Crown pathologist.

    Bruce focused on the Crown pathologist’s evidence relating to the state of the mother’s stomach content – and the estimation that the TOD was around 7pm [based on the theory that the McDonalds was purchased at 5.43pm and the pathologist's suggestion that it usually takes 1 hour to digest food]. But Bruce interviewed some overseas pathologists who questioned the 1 hour digestion theory – apparently this rate of digestion can vary greatly when food is consumed together with a large amount of liquid (in this case, Coca Cola). Apparently, when large volumes of liquid are consumed with food, digestion can take as long as 8 hours.

    So Bruce was able to paint a scenario where Lundy was able to finish with the hooker and then drive to Palmerston North to commit the double murders.

    http://www.throng.co.nz/2009/06/the-investigator-development-in-mark-lundy-double-murder/

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/doco-makes-fresh-claims-in-lundy-case-2788508

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    There is almost no doubt Lundy is guilty but there is very little evidence against him.
    It is most unlikely that Christine and Amber Lundy would have been killed by a burglar .Only a small jewellery box was missing. Lundy was in financial strife over a land purchase at the time of the murders and needed his wife’s life insurance money.
    If the DNA evidence is able to be discredited then the Privy Council could rule there should be a retrial.
    Whether a jury would find Lundy guilty or not is debatable.
    The Crown relied on evidence from American pathologist Rodney Miller ,who tested the tissue found on Lundy’s polo shirt using a technique known as Immonohistochemistry and concluded it was Christine Lundy’s brain tissue. Doubts have been cast on that finding. Some experts are saying it is an unidentifiable substance, that it could be a lick from the dog next door.
    That dog is dead and so it cannot be asked if it did,in fact, lick Mark Lundy.
    James Pang, who conducted the autopsies., put the time of death between 7pm and 7.15pm, so the Crown went with the fast drive back theory. But it now appears Pang was wrong . The time of death could have been much later.
    Lundy may have used that sex worker as an alibi and actually driven back to Palmerston North after giving her a seeing to.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Bryan Bruce will have been simply trying to shore up the Crown case. The prosecution have known for some time their ‘shopped for’ scientific evidence doesn’t hold water, so Bruce casts doubt on the timing. In fact, after selling a scenario to a jury based on one set of facts ‘backed up’ by scientific proof, they want to say all that was wrong but he is still guilty and the reason is the issue of digestion times (immeasurable really) and no scientific proof and rely on him being a billy bunter, using hookers and so on and apparently being seen running down the road in drag I think it was from memory. Proof of murder it is not in most jurisdictions but in rednecksville it is. If there is no proof that he did it let him go. It’s the old team working lack of evidence + propaganda, possibly also see witnesses suddenly remembering things, maybe a singing canary and another unsafe conviction costing a fortune because Crown Law personalise it and don’t know when to pull the plug.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Dean Papa (623 comments) says:

    The thing with science is that it can change its views when new evidence is presented. Although in the Lundy case, it appears the ‘science’ was bad to begin with. But don’t blame Pang. He just gave his considered opinion, which proved to be incorrect. Blame the detectives who worked on the case, and must have spent hours pondering the timelines and various scenarios. Yet, did it really not cross the minds of at least one of these detectives that their timeline didn’t make a lot of sense? That if Lundy had murdered his family, then he did it in the dead of night, not at 7pm. I believe there was also evidence of lights being on much later in the evening than 7pm, and that Christine liked to watch the telly. As with the Bain case, there are questions to be asked of the competence of the investigation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Muggins
    I currently believe that Lundy is probably guilty, This might well change if I read to many of your conspiracy theories on the subject! The case is probably not BRD though and if the PC decide to quash the conviction he will probably be found not guilty if the case is retried.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Psycho Milt (1,986 comments) says:

    In this case, you’re on pretty safe ground starting with the fact that he did it and working from there. It is of course theoretically possible that Palmerston North back in the early 2000s had living in it an axe-wielding homicidal maniac who chose the Lundy house at random and got axe-wielding homicidal mania out of his system with that one attack; likewise, it’s theoretically possible that there was at the time a particularly audacious, incompetent and yet homicidally aggressive burglar who picked the Lundy house, wasn’t put off by there being people in it at the time, got murderously angry when he discovered there was nothing very valuable in this small, cheap house in a proley neighbourhood, and was so upset at his failure that he never burgled again. But they’re not exactly highly likely possibilities.

    He certainly didn’t drive up from Petone and murder them around 7pm, if the round trip only took him 3 hours. There are a lot of cars on the road then, and if he’d driven the way you’d need to drive to achieve a 3-hour round trip with a break for some quick axe-murdering, the cops would have had a parade of witnesses wanting to talk about Lundy’s car going past them like a low-flying jet. Which, given that he did it, means Bryan Bruce’s theory is probably correct.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    I agree, Psycho.

    The fact Amber was killed leads me to believe Lundy did it (among other reasons). Burglars rarely murder kids. Often if a child is murdered there is a sexual motive. There was no evidence of a sexual attack in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,196) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 12:25 pm

    In this case, you’re on pretty safe ground starting with the fact that he did it and working from there

    However, by law the premise is that the accused person is innocent, and so that is where the starting position must be. The case must be built to prove guilt demonstrate how the person did it.

    Sure, a person can start from any position they like, but when they come into conflict with the verdict, they will often find it is because they didn’t start from the same premise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Dean Papa
    You say don’t blame Pang. Ok, I guess what the police should have done when they realised his time of death did not fit their timeline was get another opinion.
    Why they thought Lundy would be racing home for sex at 7pm I will never know. And while it is possible to get from where he was to Palmy and back in the time frame,and some have done that, it would be virtually impossible at that time of day.
    I know I shouldn’t mention it, what with Rowan following me around like a bad smell, he seems to be attracted to me for some unknown reason, I mean it’s not as if I look like a goat, but I liken it to the ESR scientist in the Bain case saying those drops of blood on the socks Bain was wearing falling from above. I mean it is obvious that the sole of one sock would have been pretty much saturated with blood, apart from the tops of the toes and the back part of the heels, so why muddy the waters by bringing another sock into the equation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Psycho Milt (1,986 comments) says:

    However, by law the premise is that the accused person is innocent, and so that is where the starting position must be. The case must be built to prove guilt demonstrate how the person did it.

    Yes, which is why it’s seriously bad news that Lundy’s been granted a Privy Council appeal. The jury did the decent thing and returned a guilty verdict despite the prosecution’s scenario for Lundy committing the murder being obviously wrong – presumably through taking into account the non-law-based “if he’s innocent, I’ll eat my hat” factor. The Privy Council is extremely unlikely to take that factor into account in its own deliberations.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,197) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    —————————-

    I think considering the unreliability of the vital forensic test, they have no choice but to hear the case. If that is all there is disputing the conviction, both parties will have to prove what sort of weight it had. If it can be seen has contributing strongly to the verdict, then they will have no choice but to go for a retrial, however, if there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict, minus that aspect. They will probably let it go.

    I don’t know enough about the case to really know whether the rest of the evidence is sufficient to sustain the verdict or not.

    They one point of this that worries me, is it appears to be yet another case where the initial investigation, including forensics is being disputed – and that is not good enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Psycho Milt (1,197) Says:

    February 15th, 2013 at 1:01 pm
    However, by law the premise is that the accused person is innocent, and so that is where the starting position must be. The case must be built to prove guilt demonstrate how the person did it.

    Yes, which is why it’s seriously bad news that Lundy’s been granted a Privy Council appeal. The jury did the decent thing and returned a guilty verdict despite the prosecution’s scenario for Lundy committing the murder being obviously wrong – presumably through taking into account the non-law-based “if he’s innocent, I’ll eat my hat” factor. The Privy Council is extremely unlikely to take that factor into account in its own deliberations.

    Milt, if the PC do say that there has been a miscarriage of justice, which is what I think they may well do, then there will probably be a retrial.
    After what has happened re the Bain debacle, I believe the jury won’t want to see that happening again. I reckon they will find Lundy guilty on circumstantial evidence alone, or at the very least there will be a hung jury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Psycho Milt (1,986 comments) says:

    They one point of this that worries me, is it appears to be yet another case where the initial investigation, including forensics is being disputed – and that is not good enough.

    Indeed it isn’t good enough. The sooner we can phase out having murder investigations carried out by people and introduce a system of having omniscient divinities do it, the better.

    After what has happened re the Bain debacle, I believe the jury won’t want to see that happening again. I reckon they will find Lundy guilty on circumstantial evidence alone, or at the very least there will be a hung jury.

    I agree – if they put this back in front of a jury, the “if he’s innocent I’ll eat my hat” factor will ensure it doesn’t go the Bain route. But I hate the thought of the likely expense, and particularly hate the thought of this ham actor getting to milk the role for all its worth a second time.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Keep dreaming Muggins
    Your never ending twaddle is simply laughable, You are the bad smell here!

    I used to think Lundy was innocent but don’t think so anymore, the weakness in the crown case is the timing with the prostitute alibi, however I think to much is being made of this, the killer of a Napier schoolgirl went free for 15 years because of having the ‘perfect alibi’ and as Bryan Bruce showed the killing could have been done later. Maybe I have been a bit to influenced by Nigel Lattas episode but thought it was excellent, I also struggle with the theory that it was a random axe-wielding homicidal burglar who simply chose the Lundy house at random.
    Will be interesting to see what happens

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    They one point of this that worries me, is it appears to be yet another case where the initial investigation, including forensics is being disputed – and that is not good enough.

    Yeah it would be great if police were perfect and all scientists agreed with one another. It would also be great if planes and cars didn’t crash, kids respected their elders, there were no adverts on tv, and my lotto numbers came up. But I digress.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    But I hate the thought of the likely expense, and particularly hate the thought of this ham actor getting to milk the role for all its worth a second time.

    He didn’t testify the first time, and I’d seriously doubt he’ll testify if there’s a retrial. He won’t get the chance to put on an act.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ 9:17 pm said: take out ‘bright’, ‘faint’ and ‘suggested’ and it looks like Lundy gets a retrial. … and … when the ‘certainty’ of the dna evidence falls over

    Well of course if you want to remove all the evidence, and then refer to an irrelevant concept of “certainty” of evidence, you will end up with a retrial.

    But what is your justification for removing all of the evidence? That you don’t like evidence when you are looking at it?

    And there is no need, as you know full well from your intimate expertise in the criminal justice system, for certainty of evidence. As you know full well, the test is “beyond reasonable doubt”, not “certainty”. You know better than to argue in such ways, but it does not stop your ill-disciplined debate. Get a grip if you want to be taken seriously, which of course you no longer are on other threads.

    Nostalgia-NZ, you are both pro-criminal and anti-police, with the result that you have a demonstrated lack of objectivity, and corresponding disregard for truth. You are entitled to your views, but it is important that people know your pro-criminal commenting history and stance.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    I see Rowan is still following me around like a lost puppy.
    But surprise, surprise, this time round he is showing some commonsense. We appear to be more or less on the same wavelength. What’s more he is disagreeing with his ill- disciplined myopic bosom buddy. Wonders will never cease.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    To be fair he is at least as innocent as Butcher Bain.

    Let him go and give him some compo. He only brutally murdered his family.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    muggins (2,107) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    After what has happened re the Bain debacle, I believe the jury won’t want to see that happening again.

    Are you suggesting that a jury would allow itself or should be allowed to be influenced by another case, when deciding the verdict of the current case?

    Do you have any understanding on the trial process and objective, let alone the actual law? If such a thing could be proven, it would immediately be ruled a mis-trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    tropicana I don’t give a stuff if you take me seriously. You’re just another gutless wimp from the hate-sites migrated here to carry on your ‘work.’ What names have you used on other sites and why have you changed them, is it because you are part of the stalking crew and have got no balls. Have you an interest in other posters families and children as well, do you belong to JFRBainers or Counterplonk?

    You entertain yourself with thoughts that you know me, well if you think you do identify yourself so we are on the same footing. I bet like your other ‘fellows’ you won’t. You must feel very inadequate about yourself and your ‘campaign’ if the best you can do is anonymously attack those that resist your persecution and don’t swallow your propaganda and prejudice.

    As for Lundy, I’ve expressed no opinion about his guilt and innocence, but when people post the way you do on a ‘emotional,’ self-righteous’ level and not with facts I see all the ingredients that are elements of MOJs. In this case it is “shopped for’ scientific evidence with no historical foundation, that belatedly arises when evidence of guilt is weak and possibly not even enough to charge him. I’m sure you are quite happy to see ‘bad science’ employed because you know people are guilty and evil. In fact you are some kind of nut if you can’t accept that sound evidence and not ‘bad science’ is to be considered when proving a charge BRD.

    I never wrote that the without the ‘bad science’ all the evidence falls over, that’s your imagination and nervous disposition that justice must be controlled by the ‘right’ against the ‘bad.’ All bloody mumbo jumbo. But certainly there was already doubt about the car trip, the timing and suddenly a new ‘track’ emerges from experts overseas in matters of digestion that contradict the Crown’s earlier contentions – so in light of the comparative ‘strength’ of those other factors maybe it does fall over. You apparently want to see justice your ‘way’ judged by your own tests, I just want to see facts that speak for themselves and not of peoples emotional baggage. I understand that the Crown have already made some concession about the ‘bad science’ so you seem out of touch of that as well. Does it make you feel angry and impotent, well good because that is what you are. If you were confident on your position you wouldn’t be hanging out with stalkers.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Nothing to do with you actually Muggins
    I have my own views of the individual cases based on what I’ve read of the arguments of each side. This has nothing to do with what anyone on here has posted. Your ‘evidence’ of anything is simply laughable, would be very easy to become convinced of the opposite argument based on reading any of your posts!
    Just waiting for the day that I see any commonsense in a post from you, probably to much to hope for!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Good on you Rowan, just the way it should be.
    I know virtually nothing about Lundy and little about the case. I do know he has some people that have stuck by him. Assuming he’s a reasonably intelligent person it’s hard for me to fathom why he would chose a prostitute as an ‘alibi’ and how those previous times that just meshed (with a spectacularly quick journey without any apparent hiccups) are now apparently being reviewed and shifted. From memory the ‘alibi’ came out as a credit card transaction, rather than a frank admission as to why he possibly couldn’t have done it, the haphazardness of the ‘timing’ risk also looks fragile.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ at 5:51 pm I know virtually nothing about Lundy and little about the case.

    Possibly the understatement of the year so far.
    We already knew this about you from the other case, but lack of knowledge didn’t stop you commenting literally a thousand times on Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Front up with who you are you lecturing piece of crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    I’m tropicana.
    Even if I told you my real name, you would be absolutely none the wiser.
    Live with it, just as I live with your Nostalgia-NZ handle.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Just another wimp, what a surprise. Not interested in the Lundy case just stalking for daddy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Rowan (657) Says:

    February 15th, 2013 at 5:13 pm
    Nothing to do with you actually Muggins
    I have my own views of the individual cases based on what I’ve read of the arguments of each side. This has nothing to do with what anyone on here has posted. Your ‘evidence’ of anything is simply laughable, would be very easy to become convinced of the opposite argument based on reading any of your posts!

    Rowan, if my evidence [re David Bain] is laughable then yours is hilarious.
    But at least you have got it right re Lundy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (2,903 comments) says:

    Judith (1,463) Says:

    February 15th, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    muggins (2,107) Says:
    February 15th, 2013 at 1:22 pm
    After what has happened re the Bain debacle, I believe the jury won’t want to see that happening again.

    Are you suggesting that a jury would allow itself or should be allowed to be influenced by another case, when deciding the verdict of the current case?

    Do you have any understanding on the trial process and objective, let alone the actual law? If such a thing could be proven, it would immediately be ruled a mis-trial

    But it could never be proven ,Judith, unless someone let the cat out of the bag.
    The average juror couldn’t give a stuff about the trial process or law. Look what happened at the David Bain retrial.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    muggins (2,109) Says:
    February 16th, 2013 at 8:30 am
    —————————–

    I think you are wrong. Having sat on many juries myself, and having a large number of colleagues and friends who have done the same, I find that in every case they have taken the matter very seriously.

    Juror guilt is a common phenomena that is well documented. The MOJ is frequently contacted by ex-jury members who post trial have been contacted or influenced by parties that were not present at the hearings. Such occurrences causes confusion. Should an entire jury speak out, then perhaps there would be room for alarm, but one juror does not represent the others, despite how much they might claim they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    Ignore the idiot Judith. The nut tries to turn every thread into a Bain thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    Muggins @ 8.24
    “Rowan, if my evidence [re David Bain] is laughable then yours is hilarious.”
    Nice one, you are the biggest lying piece of crap on kiwiblog, No one else has to pretend to phone witnesses to try and disprove evidence thats not in dispute by either crown or defence. Also what ‘evidence’ are you referring to? the unreferenced speculated bull, how to spell the dogs name, the tattoo etc, you haven’t provided a single piece of ‘evidence’ in the entire case, you have just provided your ‘spin’ to others posts!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    This thread is supposed to be about Lundy, not Bain.

    Perhaps if people who themselves profess to know nothing about the Lundy case, could butt out, then the entire discussion would be that much better for it. … Just a suggestion.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Nostalgia-NZ (4,697 comments) says:

    If you’re talking to me anonymous dickhead, I’ve re-acquainted myself with the broader version of the case and it remains that if the bad science is proven then the case against Lundy is in deep trouble, just as it was when the police went fishing in Texas to find an expert. Why don’t you reveal some of your other cyber identities to confirm the obvious that you’re a troll posting at around the same times used by another well known troll. You accused me of lying above like to provide some details?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “Good News – I can you this for sure – There is NO way of driving from Petone to Palmy in hour and seven minutes.”

    Absolutely, absolutely and absolutely.

    Did I say absolutely

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Rowan (1,729 comments) says:

    The PC should be hearing the Watson case as there is absolutely no evidence he committed the crime, Lundy probably did it but aspects of the evidence are a bit dodgy so on this basis he should get a new trial, If this happens he will probably get acquitted as probably not BRD, it will be disappointing if it does as at the end of the day he most likely butchered Christine and Amber. Hopefully the PC don’t decide to quash the conviction, the rate of success of PC appeals is pretty low, the lawyers have got through part one but hopefully won’t get through the second part!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ at 12:02 pm You accused me of lying above

    I accused you of lying where? What post accused you of lying? What date? What time?

    I now accuse you of lying about my accusing you of lying.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. tropicana (79 comments) says:

    At Rowan. Just like this is not a Bain thread, nor is is a Watson thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.