Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?

[Chris_Halkides]

Ellingham opinion piece

Jimmy Ellingham wrote, "I didn't report on Lundy's retrial, but watched much of it from the public gallery. The best part of a week was spent on the technique and it was dense scientific argument any normal person, such as a juror, would surely struggle to make head nor tail of....Without being in the jury room, how do we know what importance members placed on the evidence? Given the handout from the judge, it's safe to assume it wasn't ignored and would surely have at least built on the immunohistochemistry and DNA evidence in the jury's considerations."

 

[Fixit]

The Lundy shirt material was always outside the forensic safety chain.

All other alleged brain material gathered by ESR from the home was necrotic.

"We now learn of case notes confirming that all the stain material was consumed in testing in NZ (see Vintiner letter to Sutherland dated December 1st, 2000." And as below the ESR slides were necrotic - the reason why IHC was not attempted in NZ

Then from Morgan (COA) that the ESR Dab slides were degraded. Meaning that Dab Slides taken from the shirt before Miller's examination were degraded - but his were apparently not although there are brown marks in some of his lab photos of the slides showing degradation. Both the ESR and Miller slides are from the same source.

Miller gives evidence of tests smearing chicken brain on shirt material before the Lundy material arrives to emulate an air drying process - thin and even distribution on a shirt fabric. Whilst he gives evidence of this - he provides no proof.

Though it is claimed by various specialists that the Lundy questioned material is air dried, Miller fixes the shirt material after it is removed. A question if something is air-dried why would it need to be fixed in formalin or what difference would it make? If a practitioner is given sample brain from a donor body that is fixed does that specialist fix it again? Does fixed by air drying and fixed by formalin somehow give a different result?

Dako, FDA largest approved stain manufacturer says that 'air-dried' samples are not suitable to be used with their stains. They give specific instructions as to the maximum dilution rate all of which Miller exceeds, as well as ignores that the stains are not brain specific or to be used on 'air-dried' material. So positive results mean very little.

ML is somehow responsible for accidentally air drying the material on a moist and cold winter night. Besides that Dako says air-dried material is not suitable for IHC, all other literature shows the failure rate for attempting to air dry material within the lab is over 90%.

Morgan at SC admits that the IHC stain GFAP was not brain specific. The IHC submission not considered by the SC shows that all 4 stains were not brain specific - neither Jury heard that all 4 stains were not brain specific despite that Miller said they were. It's doubtful whether the Supreme Court knew the other 3 stains were not brain specific.

None of Christine's DNA found in the questioned material.

(Is there something else re Miller and either his slides or ESR slides in Texas? Can't think what will have to search again.)

 

[Fixit]

More info.


https://nostalgia-nz.blogspot.com/2019/12/all-roads-for-mark-lundy-head-to-texas.html

 

[The Atheist]

The Lundy shirt material was always outside the forensic safety chain.

I think this is as dead a duck as a duck could be dead - Lundy is serving his time, the end.

What's needed now is not so much overturning the verdict, but some thoughts and maybe even action on how he's going to cope back outside of prison.

He is forever tarred with the thought that he killed his wife & child, and in the most crazed and horrific manner. His name is known in every corner of NZ, and he's not going to able to do a Baino and shift to Aussie with a new name. Who the hell would employ him?

I doubt a GoFundMe would get much traction, as I'm fairly confident the average Kiwi's attitude toward Mark Lundy would have him somewhere between norovirus and cancer in negativity.

I also see a quick glance around the internet shows I'm not the only person who thinks Glen Weggery should have been on trial instead of Lundy. The cops found both victims' DNA at Weggery's house, he had the time and means to do it, and he also has a historical conviction for child sex offences, giving a plausible motive.

 

[Samson]

I think this is as dead a duck as a duck could be dead - Lundy is serving his time, the end.

What's needed now is not so much overturning the verdict, but some thoughts and maybe even action on how he's going to cope back outside of prison.

He is forever tarred with the thought that he killed his wife & child, and in the most crazed and horrific manner. His name is known in every corner of NZ, and he's not going to able to do a Baino and shift to Aussie with a new name. Who the hell would employ him?

I doubt a GoFundMe would get much traction, as I'm fairly confident the average Kiwi's attitude toward Mark Lundy would have him somewhere between norovirus and cancer in negativity.

I also see a quick glance around the internet shows I'm not the only person who thinks Glen Weggery should have been on trial instead of Lundy. The cops found both victims' DNA at Weggery's house, he had the time and means to do it, and he also has a historical conviction for child sex offences, giving a plausible motive.

Forget Glen Weggery.
Irrelevant.
And don’t even suggest NZ is asleep with a crooked Supreme Court.
You know this guy is innocent and so do they.

 

[Fixit]

I think this is as dead a duck as a duck could be dead - Lundy is serving his time, the end.

What's needed now is not so much overturning the verdict, but some thoughts and maybe even action on how he's going to cope back outside of prison.

He is forever tarred with the thought that he killed his wife & child, and in the most crazed and horrific manner. His name is known in every corner of NZ, and he's not going to able to do a Baino and shift to Aussie with a new name. Who the hell would employ him?

I doubt a GoFundMe would get much traction, as I'm fairly confident the average Kiwi's attitude toward Mark Lundy would have him somewhere between norovirus and cancer in negativity.

I also see a quick glance around the internet shows I'm not the only person who thinks Glen Weggery should have been on trial instead of Lundy. The cops found both victims' DNA at Weggery's house, he had the time and means to do it, and he also has a historical conviction for child sex offences, giving a plausible motive.

While I don't agree it is a dead duck. You are right about the other points and as it turns out ML is well prepared for release and has some staunch friends who have visited him throughout his imprisonment and known him all his life. He has not been idle in prison, and is in minimum security - a threat he is not.

 

[The Atheist]

Forget Glen Weggery.
Irrelevant.

A lot more relevant than this:

And don’t even suggest NZ is asleep with a crooked Supreme Court.
You know this guy is innocent and so do they.

I wasn't talking about the court, and his court efforts are over.

Yes, I'm convinced of his innocence, but I'd say 90%+ of Kiwis think he's guilty, and that's the world he's going to have to inherit.

While I don't agree it is a dead duck.

Wait & see, I guess, but I don't like his chances.

You are right about the other points and as it turns out ML is well prepared for release and has some staunch friends who have visited him throughout his imprisonment and known him all his life.

Good to know.

 

[Samson]

A lot more relevant than this:



I wasn't talking about the court, and his court efforts are over.

Yes, I'm convinced of his innocence, but I'd say 90%+ of Kiwis think he's guilty, and that's the world he's going to have to inherit.



Wait & see, I guess, but I don't like his chances.



Good to know.

You do know the Criminal cases review commission is now passed into law and awaits design and structure. Provisionally it comprises one third lawyers and two thirds non lawyers.
I wonder how the two thirds will view this from Forest Miller and the unanimous supreme court at para 134

................The defence also pointed to evidence of unidentified fingerprints and footprints at the scene, hairs in Mrs Lundy’s hands, and unidentified male DNA in fingernail scrapings. The Court of Appeal found none of this evidence cogent, and we agree.

Here is one description of the term in law

Cogent means convincing; compelling action, appealing forcefully. For example, an argument in a court can said to be cogent if it is forceful, strongly appealing and to the point.

For example if there are scientists on the commission will they form the same view as the two highest NZ courts that fingerprints dna and stray hairs are irrelevant in a murder case?
I don't think so.
So there is plenty to work on with this new statute that can be submitted to by any Tom Dick or Harry who makes a sound and relevant case for consideration. Of course since we agree he is innocent and I and others know the science employed to convict is forensically unfounded, the common sense stuff like dna, fingerprints, and stray hairs which is forensically founded comes into sharp focus.
The enduring mystery will be how anyone, let alone a supreme court judge, could write the para 134 above with a straight face.

 

[The Atheist]

You do know the Criminal cases review commission is now passed into law and awaits design and structure.

Presuming National doesn't throw it out upon being elected in November, I wouldn't hold out much hope.

The CCRC will be an independent body to review convictions and sentences where there is a suspected miscarriage of justice.

It will be able to refer cases back to the appeal courts but will not determine guilt or innocence. It will replace the referral power currently exercised by the Governor-General under section 406 of the Crimes Act 1961.

First off, they have to suspect a miscarriage of justice, and there's no guarantee of that, and even if they do and find a miscarriage has likely occurred, the best they can do is send it back to Appeal Court.

And how do you think that will go? Given the career progression from Appeal to Supreme, I don't see any judges wanting to **** in their own nest by telling their superiors they were wrong.

The CRRC will be all about cases like Pora, where a clear miscarriage has occurred and they can throw their hands up in the air about it.

 

[Fixit]

Presuming National doesn't throw it out upon being elected in November, I wouldn't hold out much hope.



First off, they have to suspect a miscarriage of justice, and there's no guarantee of that, and even if they do and find a miscarriage has likely occurred, the best they can do is send it back to Appeal Court.

And how do you think that will go? Given the career progression from Appeal to Supreme, I don't see any judges wanting to **** in their own nest by telling their superiors they were wrong.

The CRRC will be all about cases like Pora, where a clear miscarriage has occurred and they can throw their hands up in the air about it.

Actually the COA walked away from Pora because they couldn't see that it was a clear miscarriage. So by what you are saying if the CCRC sent Pora along for appeal it would have been dismissed. Furthermore, the COA would have already looked at it and dismissed it once already. The SC as well.

 

[Fixit]

Actually without checking. I don't think Pora went to SC as the case was able to be sent to the Privy Council for leave to appeal.

 

[Samson]

Did the court have nothing to say about the improbably fast road trip he supposedly took in the middle of winter?

Some simple analysis

Slipped quietly into the Mark Lundy supreme court decision is the following sentence from para 122

"........If it made the secret return trip it likely
travelled 520 km on the Naenae tank and used 58 litres at an average rate of 11.15 litres
per 100 km."

https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2019/lrj.pdf

This of course included known travel of sales trips around Wellington and to Johnsonville roundabout of 83 kilometers, and a known trip averaging 100 km/hr from the roundabout to the police cordon of 137 kms. The first of this the supreme court said used at least 12.5 liters / 100 kms and the second at least 16.44 liters/100 kms. Their figures.

This leaves 8.33 liters/100 kms for the secret 300 kms in a 4 liter straight 6 automatic Ford sedan on 91 unleaded, and not 11.15 for 520 kms at all.

Don't get in a private plane with these guys calculating fuel needs.

eta 34 mpg for the secret trip for Americans to contemplate and maybe purchase one of these remarkable vehicles.

 

[Samson]

Mark Lundy: 20 years of lies, cover-ups and incompetence

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/c...y-20-years-of-lies-cover-ups-and-incompetence

 

[Chris_Halkides]

well said

Mike White wrote, "This final rebuke and legal curtsey took six minutes. Six minutes to supposedly close 20 years of argument and anger and grief and hatred. But it won’t do that, because not only did the court’s hearing and judgment contain assumptions, curious assertions, arguable prejudice and errors, it gave its imprimatur to evidence so unreliable it should hold no place in our courts. It also implicitly endorsed an investigation so slipshod and substandard in countless aspects it is difficult to have confidence in our justice system if this is considered acceptable."

 

[Samson]

Mike White wrote, "This final rebuke and legal curtsey took six minutes. Six minutes to supposedly close 20 years of argument and anger and grief and hatred. But it won’t do that, because not only did the court’s hearing and judgment contain assumptions, curious assertions, arguable prejudice and errors, it gave its imprimatur to evidence so unreliable it should hold no place in our courts. It also implicitly endorsed an investigation so slipshod and substandard in countless aspects it is difficult to have confidence in our justice system if this is considered acceptable."

Chris I will try to post link to the app to read this whole article, it is pretty complete in its treatment of the case bar the considerable detail destroying the crown's motive, which will inevitably go to the CCRC.

 

[Samson]

I find this interesting, a forensic pathologist comes to town.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12346829

 

[Rolfe]

More sense than Neil Gaiman, obviously.

 

[Samson]

I never heard his story but he speaks of kindness like Jacinda Ardern. Her problem is she launched Steve Braunias' book The Scene of The Crime while opposition spokeswoman for justice. Steve was close to unequivocal that Lundy is innocent. Ardern quickly appointed Winkelmann to chief justice after Winkelmann deliberately ***** to New Zealanders with Lundy's appeal denial.

 

[Samson]

The hairs found in the murder victim Christine Lundy's hands were not tested and were destroyed in 2003.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/cr...t-then-destroyed-vital-evidence-in-lundy-case

The appeal court including the current chief justice managed this in the following fashion:

[361] As to the hairs, these were uplifted at the mortuary on 2 September 2000 by
Detective Jonathan Oram who produced a sketch he made, showing the location of the
hairs, in his notebook . We were not referred to (and have not been able to find in the
record) any further evidence concerning these hairs, or analysis undertaken concerning
them. This evidence does not assist in resolving the issues we have to decide.
You don't say!

 

[Chris_Halkides]

microscopic hair comparison

It is known that microscopic hair comparison can rule out possible donors of the hair. Mitochondrial DNA testing can confirm that someone is included as a possible donor, with the usual limitations of MtDNA of course.

 

[The Atheist]

The hairs found in the murder victim Christine Lundy's hands were not tested and were destroyed in 2003.

I was reading that this morning and it should be enough on its own to exonerate him - unforgivable action by our useless pigs. It's 100% clear they had such a hard-on for Lundy from the first second that they never looked elsewhere.

Imagine having that kind of evidence then destroying. A beautiful ironic disconnect between Watson's hairs and Lundy's.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I was reading that this morning and it should be enough on its own to exonerate him - unforgivable action by our useless pigs. It's 100% clear they had such a hard-on for Lundy from the first second that they never looked elsewhere.

Imagine having that kind of evidence then destroying. A beautiful ironic disconnect between Watson's hairs and Lundy's.

This seems to be a failing of the Police worldwide, they home in on a suspect and then start looking for evidence to prove that they did it. What they should really do is work on trying to exclude a suspect by examining all the evidence and the see if any of it likely excludes them.

 

[Samson]

This seems to be a failing of the Police worldwide, they home in on a suspect and then start looking for evidence to prove that they did it. What they should really do is work on trying to exclude a suspect by examining all the evidence and the see if any of it likely excludes them.

Why are New Zealanders totally uncaring about an innocent man losing his family and spending two decades in jail?
Why do they allow the highest officers of the court to perpetrate this when those highest officers have been furnished in a hundred different ways with proof of innocence?
Who are these judges?

 

[The Atheist]

Why are New Zealanders totally uncaring about an innocent man losing his family and spending two decades in jail?

Because 99% of them think he did it.

Hell, I was sure he had - the fake dramatics screamed guilty.

Plus, he was fat - a cardinal sin in itself.

Why do they allow the highest officers of the court to perpetrate this when those highest officers have been furnished in a hundred different ways with proof of innocence?

I doubt more than a fraction of a percent are aware of it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Because 99% of them think he did it.

Hell, I was sure he had - the fake dramatics screamed guilty.

Plus, he was fat - a cardinal sin in itself.



I doubt more than a fraction of a percent are aware of it.

This^

Let's face it, most people think that if you are arrested for something then you did it, and if you are convicted you really did it, and if you get convicted twice, well that just proves you did it. Look at Scott Watson and Ewen Macdonald.

 

[The Atheist]

Let's face it, most people think that if you are arrested for something then you did it...

We even have a perfect current example in this forum, with the UK politician who I don't think has even been charged, but is apparently guilty and should be hung out to dry.

Or the late Peter Ellis, who was convicted for a crime that never even happened!

 

[Samson]

We even have a perfect current example in this forum, with the UK politician who I don't think has even been charged, but is apparently guilty and should be hung out to dry.

Or the late Peter Ellis, who was convicted for a crime that never even happened!

Do not be the pied piper.
This thread is to work out why Mark Lundy has been the victim of manufactured evidence, and why the Supreme Court has decided to pacify the common citizenry by spending 100 thousand a year until Mark dies.

 

[Elaedith]

This seems to be a failing of the Police worldwide, they home in on a suspect and then start looking for evidence to prove that they did it. What they should really do is work on trying to exclude a suspect by examining all the evidence and the see if any of it likely excludes them.

This isn't unique to the police but is the way human cognition tends to work by default (confirmation bias). Structures need to be in place to counteract it (e.g. scientific methods can be seen as a way to avoid this and other biases).

 

[Samson]

Boarding a plane.

Would Cooper j and Asher J and Winkelmann j board a plane that had the same probability of landing safely as the safety of the conviction they upheld?

 

[Samson]

I have always been driven by the speed with which Chris and Rolfe and Charlie dismantled the case directly.

 

[The Atheist]

This isn't unique to the police but is the way human cognition tends to work by default (confirmation bias).

The problem is, when well over half of all female murder victims are killed by a current or former intimate partner, it's an easy bias to have.

Doubled when the husband's alibi was having sex with a hooker.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

The Treasure of the mother of all forensic studies

The police jumped to this conclusion before they had evidence. The most carefully I have read the PCAST report, the worse the forensic evidence in the Lundy case looks. It is almost as if the criminal justice establishment said, "PCAST, to god-damned hell with PCAST! We have no PCAST. In fact, we don't need PCAST..."

 

[Rolfe]

We could just copy this last series of posts and paste them in the Luke Mitchell thread and they would fit perfectly.

 

[Elaedith]

I've been wondering how many examples of wrongful convictions are the result of police using unusually bad practice, as opposed to using standard practice but where the initial hunch based on heuristics (proximity bias, partner the most likely suspect) happens to be wrong.

 

[Samson]

I've been wondering how many examples of wrongful convictions are the result of police using unusually bad practice, as opposed to using standard practice but where the initial hunch based on heuristics (proximity bias, partner the most likely suspect) happens to be wrong.

In the Lundy case there have been 4 courts where there is supposed to be a corrective role, where the jury was obviously wrong, and only the British (or English?) privy council behaved according to their brief. Two appeal courts and the supreme court in New Zealand wrote deliberate falsehoods to keep this man in jail. Each individual is on 5 to 10 times the police pay grade.
The police certainly did everything wrong as you say, but the people's disgust should be focussed on the judges, and then the police might correct their behaviour.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Let's face it, most people think that if you are arrested for something then you did it, and if you are convicted you really did it

And 99% of the time you did. Furthermore, in the vast majority of cases it's obvious that you did it. But most of these cases don't get trial by jury, and many of those that do are more about degrees of culpability than whether you actually did it. Also most involve criminals who are just hoping to get off on a technicality or weak evidence. The system does a reasonable job of handling these cases.

But then there are the outliers, cases where a 'normal' person purportedly acted completely out of character and became a criminal mastermind, committing the 'perfect' crime that defies explanation. The system doesn't always handle such cases well. The idea that someone could literally get away with murder without being detected is frightening. So the police and the courts have great pressure to find and convict the perpetrator, but the scenario is outside their normal experience and the suspects don't behave like typical criminals whose minds they understand. So the chances of a false conviction go up dramatically.

But the real problem is our adversarial legal system, which forces the prosecution to skew the evidence as much as possible towards guilt while the defense attempts to do the opposite - with truth being the casualty. So of course once the police have determined who did it, they then focus on whatever they can find that supports it rather than just following the evidence. Legal safeguards put in place in an attempt to prevent this often have the opposite effect, as the police must then dig their heels in even more to convict suspects that they 'know' are guilty.

 

[Fixit]

The police jumped to this conclusion before they had evidence. The most carefully I have read the PCAST report, the worse the forensic evidence in the Lundy case looks. It is almost as if the criminal justice establishment said, "PCAST, to god-damned hell with PCAST! We have no PCAST. In fact, we don't need PCAST..."

I think so. Also a sense of reaction against the convictions being overturned. On the other hand the Crown absolutely cheated on their parallel test of the Miller's slides and did so outside an established forensic safety chain. They let Miller make the running instead of insisting forensic processes were followed for the subsequent tests. Mark's case imploded at that point. Defence Counsel may well have been best to reject the findings because the parallel tests were not "blinded" and say that would need to withdraw in the absence of proper and fair tests.

 

[Samson]

The case is moving fast with the CCRC
The case activists are meeting soon with people who may be gravely troubled by the disgraceful lies accommodated wilfully by the most highly paid civil servants in the land aka Supreme Court judges.

 

[Samson]

The wheels of justice grind slow but exceeding fine.
Or something like that.
The CCRC in New Zealand will surely refer this case back to the court of appeal.
At this point the case will be seen by most of those who have in a rare concord of clever people declared unanimity, guilty as charged.

So how does this resolve?
The activists are resolute but aging.

 

[Samson]

We could just copy this last series of posts and paste them in the Luke Mitchell thread and they would fit perfectly.

I have reason to believe that CCRC here will take this case with grave duty to their appointed task.
Simply because justice minister Andrew Little declared the office should be far from Wellington, where solemn and malevolent determinations have emanated.