The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 37,871
Thanks for that. Not living in New Zealand, I wasn't familiar with these cases...
But it didn't stop you jumping in head first.
Nice touch.
Thanks for that. Not living in New Zealand, I wasn't familiar with these cases...
The prosecution had one claim of a proven forensic item linking Lundy to the crime.
Without going into details, they shopped around the world till they could pay a crooked Texan to fabricate a link, and all the way to our crooked Supreme Court it worked!
IIRC the appeals court threw out the messenger RNA evidence but let the conviction stand. The mRNA evidence was extremely dubious for a number of reasons, the primary one being that RNA is much more labile to nonenzymatic hydrolysis than DNA is. I suspect that many of the problems in the IHC evidence are discussed within Mr. Lundy's submission to the CCRC.(Eventually – after the trial – the Court of Appeal were to agree with the defence submissions that this evidence should not have been included in the trial.)
The timeline in the first trial was absurd, based upon traffic conditions. The timeline in the second trial was scarcely better if one takes the pathologist's comments about Amber's stomach contents as a given.I always thought the timeline on this one just never added up in terms of what would have been required.