Did Mark Lundy murder his wife and child?

This looks like the wrong thread, but these cases are linked by Robert Conchie Harris, secret witness C, bribed with parole favours, paua and crayfish.

Harris had testified as instructed by Hughes to corroborate the following. Despite already knowing Hoglin was killed 74 km from here, the appeal court became creative fiction students.

(Following up from our phone conversation. the details for the Tamihere Court of Appeal case are:

Tamihere v R CA428/90 May 21 1992 Cooke, Richardson, Casey, Hardie Boys & Gault JJ

Contact details for the Court of Appeal are:
Court of Appeal
Cnr Molesworth & Aitken Streets, Wellington
DX: SX11223
Telephone: 04 914 3540
Telephone from overseas: +64 4 914 3540
Fax: 04 914 3570
Email: Courtofappeal@justice.govt.nz)

From IW's book:

As per their above reasoning, the Court of Appeal were brutal:
“Is the new material so material that a verdict returned without
it might amount to a miscarriage of justice?
“We are quite satisfied that the answer must be no…as was clearly
recognised at the Trial, crucial to the whole case was the sighting
of the man and woman at Crosbie’s, by two trampers. They said
the man looked like Tamihere; he wore a belt with a pouch, and
was using an axe similar to those items found at Tamihere’s house;
he was putting up a tent of an unusual design, and of interest to
them, which both regarded as similar to the tent found at his house.
“The girl was remembered as similar to a photograph of Heidi
with blonde hair and fine features; and she was wearing an unusual
poncho similar again to one found at Tamihere’s house. The discovery
of such a garment and tent at his house would be a most
extraordinary coincidence. In conjunction with other matters just
described, it makes the odds against the couple being other than
Tamihere and Heidi so high as to put that possibility beyond rational
consideration.
“Once that identification is accepted, the rest of the Crown’s
evidence falls into place as convincing circumstantial proof that
the couple were murdered by Tamihere.”
That is the hub of the Court of Appeal’s decision.

End of exerpt.

It is truly terrifying that these 5 men, esteemed and highly educated, could make the bolded statement, which is profoundly incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Well hang on, Mahon attacked Morrie Davies, who blamed the pilot. Pilots say Captain Collins was the prime culprit, sadly.
Click to expand...

You're still agreeing with me. Mahon was pushed aside politically and disbelieved by pilots.

Being right is no guarantee of success.

See point 1 about teaching kids to think.
 
Samson said:
Well hang on, Mahon attacked Morrie Davies, who blamed the pilot. Pilots say Captain Collins was the prime culprit, sadly.
Click to expand...


Prime culprit perhaps but not entirely responsible. Partly to blame were

1. The person(s) who changed the INS track without telling the pilots

2. The person(s) who inadvertently programmed even the new track incorrectly

The result of these two errors put ZK-NZP on a track 43 km east of where they should have been, so rather than flying straight along the approved track to McMurdo Sound, they were flying straight at Mount Erebus.

3. Whoever scheduled two pilots, neither of whom had ever been to Antarctica, to fly together on their first ever flight there. The Air National Guard (and before them US Navy Squadron VXE-6 would NEVER have sent an aircraft to Antarctica with a pilot on board who had not flown there at least three times before. Flying near the poles is like no other type of flying you are ever likely to do.

Furthermore, unlike the ANG and the USN, ANZ did not give their pilots any training whatsoever regarding flying in sector whiteout conditions. This is just madness. The aircrew had no idea what to expect, and so when they were flying along straight at the base of Mr Erebus looking at the white of its snowy slopes rising away, what they thought they saw out of the forward cockpit windows was exactly what they were told they would see; what they expected to see, the white expanse of the Ross Ice Shelf stretching away in front of them. When they arrived at Lake Lewis, right in front of Erebus, they though it was McMurdo Sound. A few minutes later, it was all over.

As is usual with any air accident, it is the result of a series of errors, mistakes or oversights, each of which might not have had any consequences, but when they occurred together in the order they did on that day, it resulted in a "perfect storm" of cock-ups and the loss of the aircraft with over 250 lives.

► If the non-notified changes to the track are not made, the accident never happens.

► If the programming error is not made, the accident never happens.

► If Collins and Cassin are properly trained in flying during sector whiteout conditions, or of they have a pilot on board who has experience there, they might have understood what they were looking at, and the accident might never have happened.

► If Collins had not descended to 2,000 feet without authorisation, the accident might have been avoided. however, Flight 901 WAS authorised to 6,000 feet, and Mt Erebus is over 12,000 feet, so they still might have crashed anyway.

Justice Mahon coined his famous phrase "an orchestrated littany of lies" because executives in Air New Zealand tried to cover up their mistakes, particularly the first two. The bastards lied through their teeth to the Royal Commission of Inquiry
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Prime culprit perhaps but not entirely responsible. Partly to blame were

1. The person(s) who changed the INS track without telling the pilots

2. The person(s) who inadvertently programmed even the new track incorrectly

The result of these two errors put ZK-NZP on a track 43 km east of where they should have been, so rather than flying straight along the approved track to McMurdo Sound, they were flying straight at Mount Erebus.

3. Whoever scheduled two pilots, neither of whom had ever been to Antarctica, to fly together on their first ever flight there. The Air National Guard (and before them US Navy Squadron VXE-6 would NEVER have sent an aircraft to Antarctica with a pilot on board who had not flown there at least three times before. Flying near the poles is like no other type of flying you are ever likely to do.

Furthermore, unlike the ANG and the USN, ANZ did not give their pilots any training whatsoever regarding flying in sector whiteout conditions. This is just madness. The aircrew had no idea what to expect, and so when they were flying along straight at the base of Mr Erebus looking at the white of its snowy slopes rising away, what they thought they saw out of the forward cockpit windows was exactly what they were told they would see; what they expected to see, the white expanse of the Ross Ice Shelf stretching away in front of them. When they arrived at Lake Lewis, right in front of Erebus, they though it was McMurdo Sound. A few minutes later, it was all over.

As is usual with any air accident, it is the result of a series of errors, mistakes or oversights, each of which might not have had any consequences, but when they occurred together in the order they did on that day, it resulted in a "perfect storm" of cock-ups and the loss of the aircraft with over 250 lives.

► If the non-notified changes to the track are not made, the accident never happens.

► If the programming error is not made, the accident never happens.

► If Collins and Cassin are properly trained in flying during sector whiteout conditions, or of they have a pilot on board who has experience there, they might have understood what they were looking at, and the accident might never have happened.

► If Collins had not descended to 2,000 feet without authorisation, the accident might have been avoided. however, Flight 901 WAS authorised to 6,000 feet, and Mt Erebus is over 12,000 feet, so they still might have crashed anyway.

Justice Mahon coined his famous phrase "an orchestrated littany of lies" because executives in Air New Zealand tried to cover up their mistakes, particularly the first two. The bastards lied through their teeth to the Royal Commission of Inquiry
Click to expand...
I am familiar with some detail but this is a far more thorough analysis thank you Smartcooky.
The family were pleased with the Paul Holmes book, because they now have more or less the last word.

I guess we should try to aviate back to the Lundy subject, where we see a straight dichotomy. And this is important, he is guilty or innocent, and there is no chameleon colored blame scenario.
Like Cluedo he did it or did not. He did not, and the case is so needing a royal commission of inquiry down the track...
 
smartcooky said:
Prime culprit perhaps but not entirely responsible. Partly to blame were

1. The person(s) who changed the INS track without telling the pilots

2. The person(s) who inadvertently programmed even the new track incorrectly

The result of these two errors put ZK-NZP on a track 43 km east of where they should have been, so rather than flying straight along the approved track to McMurdo Sound, they were flying straight at Mount Erebus.

3. Whoever scheduled two pilots, neither of whom had ever been to Antarctica, to fly together on their first ever flight there. The Air National Guard (and before them US Navy Squadron VXE-6 would NEVER have sent an aircraft to Antarctica with a pilot on board who had not flown there at least three times before. Flying near the poles is like no other type of flying you are ever likely to do.

Furthermore, unlike the ANG and the USN, ANZ did not give their pilots any training whatsoever regarding flying in sector whiteout conditions. This is just madness. The aircrew had no idea what to expect, and so when they were flying along straight at the base of Mr Erebus looking at the white of its snowy slopes rising away, what they thought they saw out of the forward cockpit windows was exactly what they were told they would see; what they expected to see, the white expanse of the Ross Ice Shelf stretching away in front of them. When they arrived at Lake Lewis, right in front of Erebus, they though it was McMurdo Sound. A few minutes later, it was all over.

As is usual with any air accident, it is the result of a series of errors, mistakes or oversights, each of which might not have had any consequences, but when they occurred together in the order they did on that day, it resulted in a "perfect storm" of cock-ups and the loss of the aircraft with over 250 lives.

► If the non-notified changes to the track are not made, the accident never happens.

► If the programming error is not made, the accident never happens.

► If Collins and Cassin are properly trained in flying during sector whiteout conditions, or of they have a pilot on board who has experience there, they might have understood what they were looking at, and the accident might never have happened.

► If Collins had not descended to 2,000 feet without authorisation, the accident might have been avoided. however, Flight 901 WAS authorised to 6,000 feet, and Mt Erebus is over 12,000 feet, so they still might have crashed anyway.

Justice Mahon coined his famous phrase "an orchestrated littany of lies" because executives in Air New Zealand tried to cover up their mistakes, particularly the first two. The bastards lied through their teeth to the Royal Commission of Inquiry
Click to expand...

Hi smartcooky. Very thought provoking post. Would you mind if I blogged about it elsewhere? Cheers.
 
Bill of Rights Act 1990:

10: Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's consent.

Never given any regard in the NZ Courts that the Lundy conviction using a 'novel' testing method is in fact scientific experimentation.
 
Fixit said:
Bill of Rights Act 1990:

10: Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
Every person has the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation without that person's consent.

Never given any regard in the NZ Courts that the Lundy conviction using a 'novel' testing method is in fact scientific experimentation.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but I can't see it sticking.
 
The Atheist said:
Nice try, but I can't see it sticking.
Click to expand...

Not so sure, particular when there is absolutely no certainty as to the results, an absence of blood, neurons etc. Also the Crown did not return to orthodox Forensic Science after the conviction was quashed. The best independent result was faint traces of animal cns, the first opinion was too downgraded to test.

The NZ Courts too readily allowed the evidence to be admitted, they didn't insist, as would be the case in America, the UK, that the forensic pathway had been unsound. 54 days incubation in a plastic bag, locked in a safe and kept away from the exhibits officer was a recipe for disaster.
 
Fixit said:
Not so sure, particular when there is absolutely no certainty as to the results, an absence of blood, neurons etc. Also the Crown did not return to orthodox Forensic Science after the conviction was quashed. The best independent result was faint traces of animal cns, the first opinion was too downgraded to test.
Click to expand...

Sure, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the law you quoted.
 
The Atheist said:
Sure, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the law you quoted.
Click to expand...
Atheist, remember there is one common ancestor, which is a tidy proof that life exists only on planet earth. (on such a lovely planet life would have originated in multiple sites with independent ancestors, and consider there are as many molecules in a drop of water as planets in the universe). If science is important, BORA will appeal to any branch that descends from the ancestry of science, and thus drawing a link between megafauna member Mark Lundy, and the science that has taken his life is mandatory, not optional.

I could tune the above thought with time.

Meanwhile, it occurs to me, and probably Chris Halkides, that we have a splendid opportunity to expose the dangers of working backwards from a result, and thence help make law safe.
I understand Grantham said to Miller, it is important we prove this spot is brain tissue, and Miller presumably said no probs bro.
Then he may have said to Letitia Sijens, it is important we show that this CNS tissue is of human origin. (Miller allegedly proved it was CNS tissue but rather regrettably for the crown, not that it was brain tissue, though there is actually a serious question that CNS tissue of any description was proved), and she did!

The reasoning is straightforward. Christine's spinal chord was completely intact, so the spot could not be human CNS spinal chord tissue, but if we could show it was both CNS tissue, and human tissue, proof was over the line that it was Christine's brain, since Christine's brain was the only CNS human tissue discovered at the scene of the crime, and thus Lundy was guilty irrespective of any contrary indications.

But the converse is true.

If we can show that Lundy was never there (30 liters too little petrol and too late to kill, stomach contents show a death long before his alibi expired),
we prove that forensic science in criminal matters can be manipulated by wily police prosecutors and scientists to prove anything we want.

And that is a lesson to be spread to all corners of the globe.
 
Last edited:
Fixit said:
Scientific experimentation that endangered him.;)
Click to expand...

I'm a bit worried you're being serious.

Samson said:
Atheist, remember there is one common ancestor, which is a tidy proof that life exists only on planet earth.
Click to expand...

What?

Jesus H Christ, if that's the standard of your reasoning, give up now before someone notices. The statement is completely illogical.
 
The Atheist said:
I'm a bit worried you're being serious.



What?

Jesus H Christ, if that's the standard of your reasoning, give up now before someone notices. The statement is completely illogical.
Click to expand...
It is logical but slightly off topic. If planet Earth is a great place for life to evolve, it would evolve independently in multiple locations. It did not, so it takes more than a great planet, it takes infinite luck.
Think just one location on this vast surface.
We scored, even lucky enough to get you and me.
 
Samson said:
It is logical but slightly off topic. If planet Earth is a great place for life to evolve, it would evolve independently in multiple locations.
Click to expand...

No.

You really should start another thread, because it's a complete logic fail, and on several counts.
 
The Atheist said:
No.

You really should start another thread, because it's a complete logic fail, and on several counts.
Click to expand...
I have argued on several origin of life threads here. It's a matter of resurrecting one. It is my idea following from exactly 4 specific amino acids occurring in all life forms on earth. (or something like that)
For relevance, I would deem it as likely as Lundy getting exactly one speck of tissue on his shirt in a comprehensively brutal slaughter.
 
The Atheist said:
I'm a bit worried you're being serious.

I know the context is arguably only medical. Though working from the prospect of an unknown or unpredictable result, whether medical or law related the unknown or unpredictable result is common - someone potentially suffers from unproven science. More so now in the Lundy case because the Courts accepted Miller may have proved himself 'right' in his experimental use of RNA by consequently testing a known substance (brain cns) and concluding that yes it was brain. But it starts before then, in a medical procedure for example that say involved surgery, there would have to be a registered and approved surgeon undertaking the operation, along with suitably qualified staff, completing the operation in a certified and safe operating in a hospital set for that purpose. None of that occurred in Lundy to the context of sanctity of evidence being handled according to forensic standards - you know the rest of course. So the argument is Miller's experiments should never have begun, and certainly not used a second time to validate the first. It should have been off to an approved for forensics purposes laboratory, one with FDA approval. I suspect that was tried long before Miller was involved and rejected.
Click to expand...
 
Fixit said:
I know the context is arguably only medical.
Click to expand...

I'd go with a lot stronger than "arguably". There isn't any way the courts would ever consider thinking about the idea.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that it's a dead end.
 
The Atheist said:
I'd go with a lot stronger than "arguably". There isn't any way the courts would ever consider thinking about the idea.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that it's a dead end.
Click to expand...

The courts:
Trial 1 lose
Appeal 1 lose
Privy Council win
Trial 2 lose
Appeal 2 ??????
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
I have argued on several origin of life threads here. It's a matter of resurrecting one. It is my idea following from exactly 4 specific amino acids occurring in all life forms on earth. (or something like that)
Click to expand...

Start a thread with that theme and I'll explain to you exactly why you are wrong!
 
Last edited:
Has anyone explained the worst acting at the funeral since Scunthorpe Light Operatic performed MacBeth?
 
cullennz said:
Has anyone explained the worst acting at the funeral since Scunthorpe Light Operatic performed MacBeth?
Click to expand...
Given that he was burying his family his way, before he figured the police were hell bent on framing him, he wasn't acting at all. It is said he was quite embarrassed viewing footage later.
 
cullennz said:
Has anyone explained the worst acting at the funeral since Scunthorpe Light Operatic performed MacBeth?
Click to expand...

Yes, pages ago.

There are lots of cases of people behaving inappropriately under stress and grief. Lundy is an even worse case because he's thick as pig-**** and thought he should be acting a certain way, so did.

In his dimwit mind, the fact that he was able to act naturally might well have been a trigger for him that backfired.

Anyway, his actions, in light of evidence showing it couldn't have been him, are irrelevant.

He's a weirdo, not a murderer.
 
The Atheist said:
Yes, pages ago.

There are lots of cases of people behaving inappropriately under stress and grief. Lundy is an even worse case because he's thick as pig-**** and thought he should be acting a certain way, so did.

In his dimwit mind, the fact that he was able to act naturally might well have been a trigger for him that backfired.

Anyway, his actions, in light of evidence showing it couldn't have been him, are irrelevant.

He's a weirdo, not a murderer.
Click to expand...
This is completely incorrect.
Weirdness is discovered in these cases where innocent people are kidnapped by the state.

Amanda Knox
David Bain
Arthur Thomas
Mark Lundy.

You discover it all the time Atheist, yet the accounts of those who were friends before the kidnappings universally describe very normal people.

“He appeared to be his normal self”.
“He was his normal bubbly self”.
“He seemed as good as gold”
“He was the same as usual – happy, chatty, just normal Mark. He is one of our favourite reps”
“Every time the accused came in here he was always cheery, bubbly and happy. I never saw him in a bad mood. He was always the same, happy and chatty”.
“He always had a big smile and was always talkative. His visit on the day was no different from usual. I would describe him as a big teddy bear. He was a genuine, gentle, nice guy”.
“He appeared to be happy as usual”
“The accused was exactly like he usually is. He has a casual, easygoing manner about him”.

Are those references to a weirdo?
Those quotes are from customers before the killings.

After, we have the following


Firstly, the motel manager said that Mark “appeared well” when he checked out at 8:09am. The following are comments, which the police had, from customers Mark visited on the morning of August 30th, the morning after the murders –

“The accused is a very friendly, caring person. He is very gentle and very nice. He always mentioned Christine and Amber and spoke of them fondly”.
“I asked him how his wife and kids were …….his usual self…..always cheerful and good to deal with”.
“I found him to be really chatty. He was very happy and smiley like he usually is. His demeanour was the same as it always was”.
“The accused appeared to be his normal self. He was well dressed as usual and friendly. There didn’t appear to be anything wrong”.
- and from the notebook of Sweeney (not disclosed) who visited and spoke to the two customers in Wellington city (when Lundy was alleged to be in the Hutt) “Absolutely nothing strange about Lundy. Sweet/Normal”

In the context of the bolded part, almost descending into black comedy.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
This is completely incorrect.
Click to expand...

No. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Lundy is a grade A weirdo. He's thick as well.

Jesus, the guy was an enormous tub of lard, which still makes him a weirdo at this time. He could barely walk, he was so gross. He was a fat, lazy slob. His car was a rubbish tip - I think you gave the link to Denis Welch's evidence on that score. He was as far from being a "normal" Kiwi bloke as it's possible to be. Even his wife was gargantuan, and the logical part of my mind says the kid was put out of a life of misery with a minute's violence. It was an abnormal, dysfunctional family, headed by a weirdo.

Oh yeah, but very chatty and friendly with it!

Also, note that his strange acting was before he was arrested, so don't go giving that crap about "being kidnapped by the state" as an excuse, because it's not true.
 
The Atheist said:
No. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Lundy is a grade A weirdo. He's thick as well.

Jesus, the guy was an enormous tub of lard, which still makes him a weirdo at this time. He could barely walk, he was so gross. He was a fat, lazy slob. His car was a rubbish tip - I think you gave the link to Denis Welch's evidence on that score. He was as far from being a "normal" Kiwi bloke as it's possible to be. Even his wife was gargantuan, and the logical part of my mind says the kid was put out of a life of misery with a minute's violence. It was an abnormal, dysfunctional family, headed by a weirdo.

Oh yeah, but very chatty and friendly with it!

Also, note that his strange acting was before he was arrested, so don't go giving that crap about "being kidnapped by the state" as an excuse, because it's not true.
Click to expand...
In criminal law, kidnapping is the unlawful taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will.

The detainment of Mark Lundy fits this definition. In order to detain Mark Lundy, the police manufactured evidence, including the description of a painted tomahawk which was by then known to be unpainted, and the open chequebook purchase of an illegal forensic fraud.

The "acting" is deemed irrelevant, and should be struck from the record.

You seem strangely antagonistic towards any practical propagation of information that might correct the public record.
 
Samson said:
You seem strangely antagonistic towards any practical propagation of information that might correct the public record.
Click to expand...

No, I'm highly antagonistic towards people who are trying to change the public record to suit their fallacious arguments.

Lundy acting was at and around the funeral.

He was not arrested for another six months.

The video re-watched by the jury was of Lundy before he was arrested.

You are claiming his actions were the result of the arrest.

That is false.
 
The Atheist said:
No, I'm highly antagonistic towards people who are trying to change the public record to suit their fallacious arguments.

Lundy acting was at and around the funeral.

He was not arrested for another six months.

The video re-watched by the jury was of Lundy before he was arrested.

You are claiming his actions were the result of the arrest.

That is false.
Click to expand...
I don't follow you. My position is if he acted at all it was as an innocent man. His behaviour was misconstrued as acting when the police falsely accused him, and the people assumed they had evidence to that effect. On discovering all evidence proves his innocence the game changes.
 
Samson said:
I don't follow you.
Click to expand...

You specifically claimed that Lundy's behaviour was because he got "kidnapped by the cops", when he wasn't arrested until after the weird behaviour and bad acting.

You even linked it to others, where their arrest may have influenced their behaviour, like Amanda Knox.

You're tying together two completely different threads.
 
The Atheist said:
You specifically claimed that Lundy's behaviour was because he got "kidnapped by the cops", when he wasn't arrested until after the weird behaviour and bad acting.

You even linked it to others, where their arrest may have influenced their behaviour, like Amanda Knox.

You're tying together two completely different threads.
Click to expand...
Let us start again.
1. People are wrongly accused of killing friends and family.
2. After their arrest their friends desert them and the general public discover that they were weirdos all along.

Knox, Bain, Thomas and Lundy were all victims of this procedure, villagers circling with pitch forks. Look at the case of Sabrina and Cosima Misere, who did not kill Sarah Scazzi for the most diabolical example. They are jailed for life despite the father confessing and begging the system to release them.
The villagers bought the story H L and Sinker.
 
Samson said:
Let us start again.
1. People are wrongly accused of killing friends and family.
2. After their arrest their friends desert them and the general public discover that they were weirdos all along.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's fine - it's a different claim to what you made originally.

In Lundy's case, (and Baino's, as it happens) he was demonstrably a weirdo before the murders, so the point is moot anyway.

I still believe that if he hadn't been such a physically repulsive person he would be a free man now. And now he's lost all the weight, they avoided putting him on the stand.

I think you're letting the defence off lightly as well - I'm sure a good lawyer would have got Lundy off second time around.
 
cullennz said:
Has anyone explained the worst acting at the funeral since Scunthorpe Light Operatic performed MacBeth?
Click to expand...

Samson said:
Given that he was burying his family his way, before he figured the police were hell bent on framing him, he wasn't acting at all. It is said he was quite embarrassed viewing footage later.
Click to expand...


People are human. They feel pressure to act in a certain way under certain circumstances, and friends and family (whether they realise it not) DO pressure a grieving parent/child/sibling/spouse in that they expect that person to act a certain way. I'm going to relate something personal about that, about how behaviour under the emotional stress of grief was so thoroughly misread and misinterpreted by someone close to me that it caused a lengthy rift between them and myself.

I was the the oldest sibling in my family. My Father was a mentor and a friend, someone I often described as "the rudder that kept me from going off course". When he died, I was devastated, but I did not cry or show any emotion at his funeral. I felt I had to be strong and keep it together because my Mum was not dealing with it very well (they had been married for 52 years) and she was starting to fall apart.

However, my oldest sister (a very different person from me, who always wore her heart on her sleeve) interpreted my lack of outward emotion as being callous and uncaring. She accused me of being a "heartless bastard". I made no attempt to explain myself (I'm not even sure that I understood her attitude at the time) but despite others trying to explain on my behalf, she wasn't having any of it. She had made up her mind that I didn't care that Dad was dead. She refused to speak to me for nearly five years, only making contact with me as I neared my 50th birthday. We're OK now, but we lost five precious years of our relationship because I didn't grieve the way she expected me to. This is what can happen when grieving people don't behave according to expectations. Different people grieve in different ways. Some people turn into a blubbering mess, some people hold it together initially and crash later and in private.

Grief is a very personal thing. There is no right or wrong way to act or behave during your grief period, and its a big mistake to attach any evidential significance to any observed behaviours
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
I'd go with a lot stronger than "arguably". There isn't any way the courts would ever consider thinking about the idea.

It seems blindingly obvious to me that it's a dead end.
Click to expand...

The Courts have already considered it by way of the admissibility of Miller's evidence. Though the BORA was not part of that. Our Courts and Lundy would benefit from that being canvassed along with other issues in a case that has already suffered one Miscarriage of Justice recognised by the PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom