Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?

On this 6th anniversary of the thread I would like to thank Chris Halkides, Rolfe and Charlie Wilkes for their immeasurable contributions to logic, reason and justice.
Also to The Atheist for that rare change of mind.
Others know facts, like Fixit and Hard Cheese.
Smart Cooky made a remarkable post on logistics of contamination.

This case will surely be corrected.
 
The greater issue will always be the wellbeing of inmate.
Inmate is Mark Edward Lundy.
Mark remains a gregarious man who is called on to resolve conflicts within the precinct.
 
Last edited:
Questionable

By the time of the second trial, much of the evidence of the first trial had been abandoned. After the second trial, the mRNA evidence was tossed (it should have never made it into the trial in the first place). This raises a question.
 
I wouldn't be taking any bets on it.
I bet this goes back to the appeal court. They will be invited to contradict the unanimous finding of the supreme court, where the judges float up and down in an incestuous judiciary.
This will be fascinating to say the least. As with Tess of the d'Urbervilles, eventually the president of the immortals will end his sport with Mark.
 
I'd like to start a book on which one is exonerated first - Lundy, Watson or Ellis. Maybe none of them, ever.

The Lundy is black and white. The others harder to prove the negative.
The petrol in Lundy is black and white for example. The appeal court and supreme court were obliged to write false statements to deal with this, which will be seen to be unacceptable by the CCRC.
The CCRC are vested with the task of finding what went wrong if an innocent party is convicted and jailed, and kept in jail, so one of the things that went wrong is that Mark Cooper at appeal level, and Forest Miller at the supreme level, penned false statements. These statements can be easily dismantled into their component lies. They were unanimously agreed on by the pillars of society.
The CCRC was located by Andrew Little in Hamilton to be as far as practicable, he said, from Wellington.
Wellington harbours these courts of miscreants within a pitching wedge of each other.
 
The Lundy is black and white. The others harder to prove the negative.

The big difference to me is that at least with Lundy and Watson, we know for certain two people were murdered.

The most sickening thing about the late Peter Ellis is that the no crime was ever committed. But ACC pays out on recovered memories...
 
The big difference to me is that at least with Lundy and Watson, we know for certain two people were murdered.

The most sickening thing about the late Peter Ellis is that the no crime was ever committed. But ACC pays out on recovered memories...
Recovered memories prompted by $10,000 lump sums, some achieved by a kindly prompt by the clinicians that the parents had a terminating date by which to apply. Nevertheless, it is not possible to prove he performed no
indictable indiscretion of any kind.
Nor is it possible to prove that maddening ketch existed for Watson's defence, as such proof would have been found and presented. I know at least one video camera of a ketch disappeared, I just went back to the thread and it started here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10667785&postcount=87

Note mods, we are concerned with degrees of certainty with these three cases, and I am suggesting Lundy is 100% certain of innocence, whereas the others are beyond proof of innocence.
Therefore the Lundy case will cause the greatest upheaval because of the wilful fabrications of the highest judges.
 
Recovered memories prompted by $10,000 lump sums, some achieved by a kindly prompt by the clinicians...

I used to go out with a chick who scored one of those ten grands. Easy money, and it gives the person validation as well.

Win all round.
 
I used to go out with a chick who scored one of those ten grands. Easy money, and it gives the person validation as well.

Win all round.
Yep 5 grand was handy money back then. ;)

Chief justice Eichelbaum was party line knocking back the appeal. And this is what Lundy confronts.
But this time it is different. I must encourage the thread stalwarts to have faith.
 
I must encourage the thread stalwarts to have faith.

I don't, sorry.

When your star witness takes two completely opposite positions in consecutive trials and the jury buys them both, you're finished. They successfully argued that night is day and won, thanks to one sentence: "No man should have his wife's brains on his shirt."

He didn't.

If there was a market, I'd have a sly $10 on Lundy dying in jail.
 
By the time of the second trial, much of the evidence of the first trial had been abandoned. After the second trial, the mRNA evidence was tossed (it should have never made it into the trial in the first place). This raises a question.

The sticking plaster reinfected the wound?
I always strive for analogies but true poetry eludes me.
 
right for the wrong reasons?

When your star witness takes two completely opposite positions in consecutive trials and the jury buys them both, you're finished. They successfully argued that night is day and won, thanks to one sentence: "No man should have his wife's brains on his shirt."
The defense would benefit from a snappy comeback to this statement.

When I followed the aftermath of the second trial on a New Zealand blog, someone said of the first case words to the effect, "You can be right for the wrong reasons." Perhaps that notion was in the minds of the second jury.
 
The defense would benefit from a snappy comeback to this statement.

The defence team must take a lot of the blame, in my opinion.

I'm sure they challenged evidence, but they must have been terrible at it for the stomach contents to be anything other than exculpatory. I believe that expert committed perjury. He knows he's wrong and said it anyway.
 
The defence team must take a lot of the blame, in my opinion.

I'm sure they challenged evidence, but they must have been terrible at it for the stomach contents to be anything other than exculpatory. I believe that expert committed perjury. He knows he's wrong and said it anyway.

James Pang was clearly not an expert so the prosecution should never have put him in the position. It is probably a record change to go from an exact 15 minute window for time of death to any time between when Mrs Lundy put the phone down at 7 04 pm till the bodies were discovered about 9 the next morning. So from 15 minutes to 14 hours.
He explained this variation in his testimony by saying he had done more reading in the intervening decade.
 
He explained this variation in his testimony by saying he had done more reading in the intervening decade.

That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say the defence team carries much of the blame. A Peter Williams would have destroyed him, but any defence lawyer worth his immense legal aid bill should have, too.
 
That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say the defence team carries much of the blame. A Peter Williams would have destroyed him, but any defence lawyer worth his immense legal aid bill should have, too.
More disturbing was the defence team threatening to quit pre trial if Mark challenged their concession the IHC was proper science and the substance was indeed central nervous system tissue.
 
I'm with The Atheist I'm afraid. There are cases in which the authorities simply will never allow any verdict that puts them in the wrong, and this seems to be one of them. I'm thinking the IRA bombing trials were an aberration in getting corrected.
 
That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say the defence team carries much of the blame. A Peter Williams would have destroyed him, but any defence lawyer worth his immense legal aid bill should have, too.

Peter would have researched the heck out of the ESR file, found a heap of strong exculpatory evidence - discussed it with Bernard Brown from the Auckland Law School and fought the admissibility of the IHC all the way to the PC again possibly, along with the arguments about the palm hairs not being examined. I say this as him having been involved with the retrial.

The ESR discovery files from 2014 are remarkably helpful and if fully read I feel certain PAW would not have conceded brain as being on the shirt. Never. It's in the files that 1 hair (clearly not belonging to CL or ML) examined could have been subjected to mtDNA testing, in the broader picture so should have the 21 palm hairs and PAW I believe would have not been prepared to proceed with the trial until all the hairs had been tested. Particularly with what is now understood about the hair evidence in the Watson case. The Lawyers had all this before them as did their forensic science advisors. Mark has never had a proper defence or a fair trial.
 
Peter would have researched the heck out of the ESR file, found a heap of strong exculpatory evidence - discussed it with Bernard Brown from the Auckland Law School and fought the admissibility of the IHC all the way to the PC again possibly, along with the arguments about the palm hairs not being examined. I say this as him having been involved with the retrial.

The ESR discovery files from 2014 are remarkably helpful and if fully read I feel certain PAW would not have conceded brain as being on the shirt. Never. It's in the files that 1 hair (clearly not belonging to CL or ML) examined could have been subjected to mtDNA testing, in the broader picture so should have the 21 palm hairs and PAW I believe would have not been prepared to proceed with the trial until all the hairs had been tested. Particularly with what is now understood about the hair evidence in the Watson case. The Lawyers had all this before them as did their forensic science advisors. Mark has never had a proper defence or a fair trial.
Bernard Brown visited Arthur Thomas in jail.
Bernard declared him guilty on demeanour during the visit.
Slightly off topic but I knew him.
 
In one of the Lockerbie threads we heard about someone (a lawyer perhaps?) who had some contact with Abdelbaset al-Megrahi in jail and pronounced him guilty on the basis of his demeanor. Everyone else who met him, prison guards, other inmates and so on, were convinced of his innocence. One person's impression of someone's demeanour isn't anything to go on.
 
wasted resources

The prosecution used two...novel...types of forensics against Mr. Lundy. Some thought should be given to why they did so. In addition, one wishes that they had spent the money wasted on testing fourteen year old stains for messenger RNA, on rethinking the investigation from square one.
 
instability of messenger RNA

The mRNA-based vaccines against Covid-19 are known to require cold storage (for a simplified explanation, see this link). This is additional evidence, though indirect, that a fourteen year old stain should not have been used as a source of mRNA. It is worth asking why and how the New Zealand authorities went that route. Did someone not apprise them of this problem?
 
Pales into nothing in comparison with the crown evidence on digestion of the food.

Facts were irrelevant to a corrupt jury at the second trial.
 
The mRNA-based vaccines against Covid-19 are known to require cold storage (for a simplified explanation, see this link). This is additional evidence, though indirect, that a fourteen year old stain should not have been used as a source of mRNA. It is worth asking why and how the New Zealand authorities went that route. Did someone not apprise them of this problem?

Can't remember Chris without going searching but I do know ESR warned police not to send Christine's DNA to Miller as he had no forensic science accreditation to handle DNA. She was likely concerned it might suddenly get found somewhere it hadn't been found before. There were other warnings she gave police but I recall they were all ignored.
 
Parole hearing this year and CCRC news might be a dead heat. Bodes ill for the great New Zealand experiment in managing justice without assistance from mother England.
 
Actually not. Quickly found 5 cases recently 2 of which were double murders and both were released. Tamihere is one of those 2, the other is Gail Maney. One of the 5 (all murder convictions) was released at his first board.
Independent psychologists advise denying guilt doesn't increase risk.
 
Actually not. Quickly found 5 cases recently 2 of which were double murders and both were released. Tamihere is one of those 2, the other is Gail Maney. One of the 5 (all murder convictions) was released at his first board.
Independent psychologists advise denying guilt doesn't increase risk.

Just checked the list a third such case was John Barlow, double murder, turned down at Privy Council.

In reality, Mark has a very good chance for both Parole and exoneration.
 
Just checked the list a third such case was John Barlow, double murder, turned down at Privy Council.

In reality, Mark has a very good chance for both Parole and exoneration.

John Barlow was unusual, certainly a conspirator.
Mark not at all.
 
it made my head spin

One of the most surprising things about the retrial was the complete about-face that the prosecution did regarding the timeline. In effect the police were admitting that the first jury should not have convicted Mr. Lundy. One of David Hislop's questions to a police officer addressed this, if I am not mistaken. If I had been on the jury, I would have been so discomfited by the abrupt and complete change, I would have thought long and hard about convicting, even if there had been no defense presentation whatsoever.
 
The foreperson of the jury was the niece (or other close relative, Samson will correct me if that's wrong, he has the details) of the publisher of the local newspaper, which was heavily invested in Lundy's guilt.
Such speculation may be illegal here, but when the editor was challenged by a few Lundy supporters, he said my job is to sell newspapers.
Clearly he sold plenty by collaborating with the police from the get go.

I don't recall his name but easy to find.
 
One of the most surprising things about the retrial was the complete about-face that the prosecution did regarding the timeline. In effect the police were admitting that the first jury should not have convicted Mr. Lundy. One of David Hislop's questions to a police officer addressed this, if I am not mistaken. If I had been on the jury, I would have been so discomfited by the abrupt and complete change, I would have thought long and hard about convicting, even if there had been no defense presentation whatsoever.

From my perspective, my question is how can there be no reasonable doubt considering that the prosecution is switching timelines? Among all the other issues (the immunohistochemistry stuff, for example, etc).

Even if you weigh the evidence and say, yeah, I think he did it, is it really that clear to beyond a reasonable doubt? There are no good reasons to doubt his guilt? I find that unfathomable.

Or does the beyond a reasonable doubt standard not apply in New Zealand?
 
the BRD standard in New Zealand

"n contrast to the civil standard, the criminal standard of proof – beyond reasonable doubt – is more rigid and is generally strictly adhered to throughout common law jurisdictions. Neither the standard itself nor the evidence required to meet it is said to fluctuate. This is because of the inherent seriousness of criminal matters and the need to protect the accused, and in particular the need to protect innocent persons from conviction.272 While it is referred to as the criminal standard, proof beyond reasonable doubt is also required in proceedings for civil contempt, because there is a risk of imprisonment273 and for orders under the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 declaring that a child or young person is in need of care or protection on the grounds that he or she has committed an offence.274" link and link2

Of course different juries probably interpret what is meant by "beyond reasonable doubt" in different ways.
 

Back
Top Bottom