Journalist views on Lunday

April 4th, 2015 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Steve Braunias writes in the NZ Herald:

Maybe it was absolutely correct but I think the verdict was a gross injustice. I don’t think he did it.

Always interesting to hear from someone who sat through the entire trial.

But it’s more that I just can’t accept that Lundy behaved as if nothing had happened after killing his adored and precious daughter. …

The guilty verdict means we have to believe that he killed her because she walked in on her father murdering her mother.

“Nah,” said his lawyer, David Hislop QC, when I spoke with him two days before the verdict. “He’s too weak. Doesn’t have the balls.”

If one accepts that he never intended to kill Amber, it would have been an awful decision on what to do when she walked in. Do you kill your daughter or go to jail for killing your wife? Did he not think of the possibility she would walk in? What if he had worn a balaclava?

I think we all struggle with the thought that a man can kill his daughter. We understand that people sometimes kill their partners, but not their children.

However also hard to think why anyone else would have killed Amber, if it was a burglary gone wrong?

The article by Braunias is interesting. He spent a day a week over the summer with Lundy.

But a different view from another journalist, as reported by Stuff:

Fourteen years ago, Mark Lundy invited a journalist and photographer into his home for his only interview. His wife and daughter had been hacked to death just three months earlier and, unknown to the public, Lundy was the prime suspect. But as Ben Heather reports, even then Lundy seemed a bad actor.

Photographer Kevin Stent knocked on Mark Lundy’s front door and heard a scuttling inside.

After days of back and forth, Lundy finally agreed the previous day to be interviewed, and Stent had returned to take a photograph earlier that morning – but now it appeared he was backing out.

Eliciting no response, Stent walked around the house to find Lundy in the backyard. His hands were clasped together against his face in prayer and he was mumbling to himself, seemingly oblivious to Stent’s presence even as the camera clicked.

“But I just felt like he was doing it for me. Like it was completely contrived,” Stent recalls 14 years later.

Maybe he got to be a better actor over the last 14 years?

After praying, Lundy invited Stent inside and the theatrics continued as they spent several hours together. Stent says at one point Lundy suddenly lay on the ground in a “dead ant” pose with his legs and arms in the air, wailing. Later he walked into a closet, closed the door and screamed.

Seems incredibly contrived.

During that interview in 2000, Lundy told Johns how, since his wife’s death, he would go to the cemetery with a bottle of her favourite wine: Alpha Domus sauvignon blanc. He would sit at the grave and pour two glasses, taking a sip from each one. Amber was not left out. He took some fizzy drink for her. “And while I was out there, a woman put her hand on my shoulder and said, ‘Mark, the whole of Palmerston North is with you’.”

He barely left the home for the guilt since his family had left, he claimed.

But, at his first trial, the juries heard a very different story. It was revealed that, far from being a recluse, Lundy was planning a second 21st birthday and was regularly seen drunk at social events after murdering his family. Six weeks after their death, he even found time for the services of a prostitute.

While I respect Steve Braunias sat through the trial, I have to say I think the jury got it right.


Lundy gets three extra years

April 2nd, 2015 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Well justice has been wise this time, and Lundy is again found guilty. His original trial got him a 17 year non parole period. This one got him 20 years non parole. And far from likely he’d even get out after 20 years considering he won’t admit his guilt.

Stuff reports:

Crown prosecutor Philip Morgan managed to sum up those years of Lundy’s life during his closing address to the retrial jury. If Lundy did not kill his wife of 17 years and their 7-year-old daughter, “he would have to be the unluckiest man in the world”.

Lundy claimed he was that man, despite damning evidence to the contrary.

His claim did not persuade the jury, which found him guilty.

Anyone who sat through every day the retrial should not be surprised at the verdicts.

Always interesting to hear the opinion of someone who actually heard all the evidence.

He dropped multiple zingers, but one line struck the strongest: “No husband should have his wife’s brain on his shirt.”


Lundy gets a retrial

October 7th, 2013 at 10:31 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Mark Lundy’s murder convictions have been quashed and he has been granted leave for a retrial by the Privy Council in London.

Lundy was convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in August 2000, and was sentenced to a jail term of at least 20 years.

His case was taken to the Privy Council and a three-day appeal hearing was held in June.

In its decision – released tonight – the Privy Council unanimously decided that Lundy’s appeal should be allowed; that the convictions should be quashed; that Lundy should stand trial again on the charges of murder as soon as possible; and until then, and subject to any High Court decision on bail, Mr Lundy should remain in custody.


I’ve decided that everyone ever charged with murder is innocent.

There’s obviously one very successful serial killer running around that has managed to kill the Swedish backpackers, the Lundys, the Bains, Ben & Olivia and oh year probably Mona Blades also.

They may also have popped over to the US and killed Nicole Simpson.  One can not rule out their involvement in the assassinations of JFK and MLK.

I just hope they never come after me, as if so they will obviously frame someone else for my murder.

Lundy gets a Privvy Council appeal

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

Stuff reports:

Mark Lundy has been granted a hearing in front of the Privy Council 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.