ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Amy Adams , Ellie France , Mark Lundy , murder cases , New Zealand cases

Reply
Old 23rd March 2015, 08:40 PM   #481
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
From today,

"Mr Kelly asked Lundy what tools at his property could be used to inflict the injuries, to which he replied a tomahawk that was kept in his shed, but could not think of anything else.
He could not explain why paint chips matching some of his tools, that were in a locked garage, were found near his daughter's head."


A few questions need answering if anyone can.

1. Were the paint chips match more than just colour. They must be able to be forensically included or excluded.
2. Why did Mark Lundy volunteer his tomahawk as a possible murder weapon?
3. Did the tomahawk disappear, or was it still in the garage?

If hypothetically Lundy was the killer, what would make him suggest his own tool?

We are discussing another suspect known to Mrs Lundy, and Mark was often away. Did she allow him access to the locked shed at any time? There must be phone records to further the discussion.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2015, 08:48 PM   #482
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,429
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
How about in a landfill along with tens of thousands of other rubbish bags? Yes, theoretically they could be dug up, but every day the police spent with their Lundy goggles on, the less likely that would be.
Again, the perpetrator would not have known that Lundy would even be a suspect, and with Barlow's case where the cops turned over an entire rubbish dump, it would have inherent risk.

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
All he'd need to do is stick the blood-soaked clothing in a bucket of hot water and oxygen bleach for maybe 12 hours, he could probably wear it to a police interview and not get caught.
I see that a highly unlikely choice. Leaving the evidence sitting in buckets for 12 hours doesn't gel with the planning and execution. And there's no guarantee it would work - blood is damned hard to get out of many types of clothes.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2015, 09:16 PM   #483
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
A few questions need answering if anyone can.

1. Were the paint chips match more than just colour. They must be able to be forensically included or excluded.
There was a lot of paint around:

Quote:
The paint which was found embedded in pieces of bone at the scene would have been put there by a painted object being struck against the bone, Coulson said.Six different colours of paint were found either around the murder scene, in the bodies of the victims or in items from the autopsy of the bodies.
(...)
Since no objects given to ESR contained all six colours, it was possible more than one object was used to place the paint at the scene, she said.

Paint matching that from Mark Lundy's tools was found in the bag used to wrap part of Amber's body before she was moved from the murder scene, Coulson said.

A fragment of paint, with a dark blue and light blue layer, was found in the bag.
While the dark blue side did not match any control samples, the light blue side matched paint samples taken from Lundy's tools and a can of paint from his shed, she said.

Paint found on items at the scene could have matched the paint Lundy used to paint his tools.
(...)
Light blue paint found on the possible bone fragments could not be excluded as coming from tools found in Lundy's shed, Coulson said.
Sounds like an unusual amount of paint contamination for some reason. Also more than you would expect to flake off a murder weapon during one use. And how does the paint get embedded in the bone unless the blade of the tomahawk is painted?

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
2. Why did Mark Lundy volunteer his tomahawk as a possible murder weapon?
That's puzzling. If he did it, he could have easily said he never owned a tomahawk - the only two people who could have conceivably said otherwise were dead. Unless he knew Glenn Weggery or someone else in his close family knew he had one. But then they would have testified to that effect - that he owned a tomahawk (painted or otherwise), surely?

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
3. Did the tomahawk disappear, or was it still in the garage?
Good question!
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2015, 09:19 PM   #484
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,632
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Nonsense. It applies equally to whoever the perpetrator is.

Getting rid of blood-soaked clothing permanently would not be easy. Where do they dump it? If you've committed a double murder and don't want to be caught, the clothes would need to be burnt, or buried somewhere they could not be dug up.

If the person was smart enough to cover their tracks - as they absolutely were - then I don't believe they would have chucked them in a public bin of any kind, and would not have thrown in a rubbish sack. Far too many things could happen, dog opens the bag - whatever.
There are any number of places that bloodstained clothing could be disposed of with no chance of it ever being found. Palmerston North is a rural town, so there are things like farm offal pits and literally square miles of Forestry and Native bush areas that are easily accessible within just a few minutes drive time, where they could be buried and never found. The Manawatu River would be a good dump site as the water would destroy any forensics. Of course, old fashioned burning in a backyard incinerator (no fire restrictions in August) would be the easiest thing to do.

Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Except it makes no sense.

They did not know they had lots of time, and I'd lay my life that the clothes were disposed of extremely quickly.

The clothes form the only evidence that could provide 100% certainty of guilt, so leaving them anywhere would not be a valid option.
Earlier in the thread, you said that the husband is always the first suspect. If the killer was smart enough, he would know that. If he killed them in the late evening, (as seems more likely since it more closely matches the computer turnoff time, the report of lights on and the time that neighbours reported yelling, glass shattering, a woman shrieking and dogs going nuts barking) then he had all night to dispose of the clothing. He could have driven out of Palmerston North into the Manawatu Gorge and dumped the evidence anywhere within, say 20m of the road for miles of road.

Note that the Police never investigated the yelling, shrieking and glass breaking that went on. They also never accounted for the men seen walking in the street behind the Lundys' house at about 9pm on August 29, 2000, and were never able to account for the unexplained footprints in the area. In short, they thought they had their man and they ignored reports and evidence that didn't fit their theory. Of course, they gratefully accepted the evidence from some froot loop medium who said she saw Mark Lundy dressed in women's clothing walking away from the Lundy home, because it fitted their theory of the crime at that time.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!

Last edited by smartcooky; 23rd March 2015 at 09:24 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2015, 09:39 PM   #485
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Again, the perpetrator would not have known that Lundy would even be a suspect,
You know and I know that the husband would be first to be looked at. In any case, I think he could have counted on at least a couple of days before the police could possibly get a suspect list together and come knocking on his door.
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
and with Barlow's case where the cops turned over an entire rubbish dump, it would have inherent risk.
Sure, no murder is risk free. And note they never turned over any rubbish dumps looking for the tomahawk, the jewellery box and any protective clothing in this case.
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
I see that a highly unlikely choice. Leaving the evidence sitting in buckets for 12 hours doesn't gel with the planning and execution. And there's no guarantee it would work - blood is damned hard to get out of many types of clothes.
Not really - unless he was wearing a white shirt. It only takes two hours washing in hot water and oxygen bleach for all the haemoglobin to be removed, and most of the assessable DNA material. Run a wash cycle with oxygen bleach after an 11pm murder, then leave the clothes in a bucket overnight in the same bleach. By the time the bodies are discovered the next morning, the forensic evidence on the clothes is gone. Doesn't sound very complicated to me.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 23rd March 2015 at 09:43 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2015, 10:55 PM   #486
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
There are any number of places that bloodstained clothing could be disposed of with no chance of it ever being found. Palmerston North is a rural town, so there are things like farm offal pits and literally square miles of Forestry and Native bush areas that are easily accessible within just a few minutes drive time, where they could be buried and never found. The Manawatu River would be a good dump site as the water would destroy any forensics. Of course, old fashioned burning in a backyard incinerator (no fire restrictions in August) would be the easiest thing to do.



Earlier in the thread, you said that the husband is always the first suspect. If the killer was smart enough, he would know that. If he killed them in the late evening, (as seems more likely since it more closely matches the computer turnoff time, the report of lights on and the time that neighbours reported yelling, glass shattering, a woman shrieking and dogs going nuts barking) then he had all night to dispose of the clothing. He could have driven out of Palmerston North into the Manawatu Gorge and dumped the evidence anywhere within, say 20m of the road for miles of road.

Note that the Police never investigated the yelling, shrieking and glass breaking that went on. They also never accounted for the men seen walking in the street behind the Lundys' house at about 9pm on August 29, 2000, and were never able to account for the unexplained footprints in the area. In short, they thought they had their man and they ignored reports and evidence that didn't fit their theory. Of course, they gratefully accepted the evidence from some froot loop medium who said she saw Mark Lundy dressed in women's clothing walking away from the Lundy home, because it fitted their theory of the crime at that time.
The witness that spotted Mark Lundy with his othopedic problems joggin around in woman's clothes plays a popular role in crime fiction. A florist's dream secures the convictions of Cosima and Sabrina Misseri, a heroin addict and a mad woman on diuretics ably assist in jailing Amanda and Raffaele, and a kindly aunt happily accepts 5,000 dollars to suggest a baseball bat and Teina Pora chanced upon each other to excise 20 years from his (probably miserable to be fair) life. It seems to go on and on.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2015, 01:11 AM   #487
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,429
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
In short, they thought they had their man and they ignored reports and evidence that didn't fit their theory.
Yes, well that's exactly what's going to set Lundy free and with a big payout.

Any independent review is going to find in favour of Lundy.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2015, 01:17 AM   #488
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Yes, well that's exactly what's going to set Lundy free and with a big payout.

Any independent review is going to find in favour of Lundy.
Crusher Collins might dispute the payout notion.
Amy Adams is a clone.

Teina Pora lied and tried to claim a reward, so will get sod all compensation.
Lundy lost wife daughter and life. 15 million would be just.

Last edited by Samson; 24th March 2015 at 01:27 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2015, 12:44 PM   #489
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,429
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Crusher Collins might dispute the payout notion.
Amy Adams is a clone.
Can't see it in this case - no independent review will find anything other than a serious miscarriage of justice.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Teina Pora lied and tried to claim a reward, so will get sod all compensation.
I don't think it counts as lying when a person with a mental disability is coerced into something. I'm willing to bet he gets at least $2m.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Lundy lost wife daughter and life. 15 million would be just.
Based on the evidence presented, you might be right.
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2015, 02:10 PM   #490
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by The Atheist View Post
Can't see it in this case - no independent review will find anything other than a serious miscarriage of justice.



I don't think it counts as lying when a person with a mental disability is coerced into something. I'm willing to bet he gets at least $2m.



Based on the evidence presented, you might be right.
I think we can look forward to a fair bit of shock and awe when and if he is acquitted. I have been truly amazed how guilty the whole country believes he still is.
And blind Freddie can see without the privy council he is still in jail serving his whole sentence, then being denied parole for showing no regret for his actions. That is why listening to Amy Adams pontificate the new supreme court is just fine makes me deeply uneasy. There is no mechanism for correction now in New Zealand. I don't believe it has anything to do with better legal brains in London, everything to do with neutrality.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2015, 04:45 PM   #491
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
And blind Freddie can see without the privy council he is still in jail serving his whole sentence, then being denied parole for showing no regret for his actions.
What was worse, he takes new eyewitness evidence to his appeal, it gets rejected by Tipping & Co. (using the most ridiculous reasoning you'd find outside a children's book) and he gets an additional two years for his trouble...all based on the same faulty evidence presented in the first trial.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
That is why listening to Amy Adams pontificate the new supreme court is just fine makes me deeply uneasy. There is no mechanism for correction now in New Zealand. I don't believe it has anything to do with better legal brains in London, everything to do with neutrality.
I agree, the current closed circle of NZ justice has resulted in too many dubious high-profile convictions to allow matters to remain solely in their hands; there needs to be an independent, objective voice in the process.

Once this is all over, serious questions also need to be asked as to how such poor police work, poor forensics, and a case that bordered on the realms of fantasy ever got presented to a jury. I'm all for bringing perpetrators to justice, but not based on speculative theories, assumed evidence, myopic psychics, jailhouse snitches and experts who change their minds.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 24th March 2015 at 04:47 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2015, 11:10 PM   #492
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
What was worse, he takes new eyewitness evidence to his appeal, it gets rejected by Tipping & Co. (using the most ridiculous reasoning you'd find outside a children's book) and he gets an additional two years for his trouble...all based on the same faulty evidence presented in the first trial.

I agree, the current closed circle of NZ justice has resulted in too many dubious high-profile convictions to allow matters to remain solely in their hands; there needs to be an independent, objective voice in the process.

Once this is all over, serious questions also need to be asked as to how such poor police work, poor forensics, and a case that bordered on the realms of fantasy ever got presented to a jury. I'm all for bringing perpetrators to justice, but not based on speculative theories, assumed evidence, myopic psychics, jailhouse snitches and experts who change their minds.
I do think the pedantic intoning of the traditional NZ barrister in engaging the attention of the court will be best remembered by

"No husband should have his wife's brain on his shirt".

I think we can all say amen to that.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2015, 11:16 AM   #493
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,632
IMO, the removal of the Privy Council step has one, and only one purpose; to make the NZ Justice System a closed shop in order to stem the tide of quashed convictions and hide the massive flaws in our system.

In future, I do not expect to see the number of convictions quashed that we have seen in the past under the Privy Council step once New Zealand judges get to pass judgement on the decisions of members of their own Old Boys Club.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2015, 03:32 PM   #494
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Leaving aside the stain on the shirt for the meantime, there are more contradictory suggestions.

10:14am: Mark Lundy had enough petrol to do the "killing trip", as he did not drive at extremely high speeds, Crown prosecutor Philip Morgan said.

Continuing his closing address to the jury, he said Lundy would have driven extremely safely while doing the trip to kill his family.

"The last thing he wanted in the world was to draw attention to himself."

Reconstructions done by police, during which they drove the route at high speed, accelerating heavily, and with the air conditioning on full, showed Lundy could not do the trip if he went quickly.



Morgan said those tests were done when the police believed Lundy did the trip at high speed, and they showed he would have run out of petrol between Levin and Palmerston North.

But the high-speed trip was no longer part of the Crown case.

"There is no way in the world...he was driving like a mad thing," Morgan said.

"He would have done everything possible to ensure his driving was as uninteresting as possible."


With this analysis he has eliminated entirely the early evening trip, and become wedded to an impossible medical scenario, two autopsies that combine to reinforce correctness of procedure, and which are correctly interpreted by the new defence expert as precluding a late death, 4 times later, 8 hours rather than two hours.
Contamination on the shirt has a scientific possibility, but the autopsies preclude the prosecution theory.
It is also worth noting he reeked of rum, nearly a bottle. This is a dangerous amount to drive with, when a random police stop would find him with the most strange assortment of equipment needed for the killing and clean up.

He is then up at 7 to buy razor batteries, and no chance of sleep before another mad dash to meet the police and the tragedy.

Last edited by Samson; 25th March 2015 at 03:33 PM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2015, 03:55 PM   #495
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
On finances.

11:23am: The Lundys' financial position was dire, with pressure mounting through 2000 leading up to the murders, Morgan said.

They were constantly being hassled to pay off a debt to a kitchen sink supplier, and Lundy was going to be handed a $100,000 penalty interest bill for the land deal for his wine venture.

Evidence had been given that Lundy had until August 30, 2000 to seal the land deal, or he would get the interest bill, Morgan said.

"Can you imagine how happy his wife would have been about that?"

Lundy told various people he was about to go bankrupt, including the person he would owe penalty interest to, Morgan said.

"He knew he was going to go bankrupt.

"That's what I mean, members of the jury, when I say that this is a family in financial crisis.

"It was catastrophe time


When stated like this, the motive gets stronger. However, he could only plan it for this morning time, and planning is intrinsic in this account, because there was a late and unexpected cancellation of Brownies for Amber.
If the prosecution theory is to be accepted, both mother and daughter had a very severe case of the very rare condition, gastroparesis, which affects about one person in 10,000.

The autopsies are critically important, but completely ignored by Morgan. I expect the defence will have power point presentations of the digestive process, and the jury must acquit.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th March 2015, 05:18 PM   #496
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Lundy told various people he was about to go bankrupt, including the person he would owe penalty interest to, Morgan said.

"He knew he was going to go bankrupt.

"That's what I mean, members of the jury, when I say that this is a family in financial crisis.

"It was catastrophe time[/i]

When stated like this,
Even stated like that, I don't think it's a great motive for murder. If Lundy was resigned to going bankrupt, he must have had some idea of what it entailed. It's hardly the end of the world - for a start, all his debt would have been written off. At $200,000 the life insurance wouldn't have covered his debt anyway, so he would have been better off bankrupt. He couldn't pay everything out until the $500,000 figure came into effect.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 25th March 2015 at 05:20 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2015, 02:16 AM   #497
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Even stated like that, I don't think it's a great motive for murder. If Lundy was resigned to going bankrupt, he must have had some idea of what it entailed. It's hardly the end of the world - for a start, all his debt would have been written off. At $200,000 the life insurance wouldn't have covered his debt anyway, so he would have been better off bankrupt. He couldn't pay everything out until the $500,000 figure came into effect.
Your figures look right, but I am trying to think like a juror. We are still waiting to hear from the source on the land deal. We fully expect to at some point. There is no doubt there can be a motive thread woven for the date, but he could never plan it for early evening because of brownies, so nothing fits. As the defence note, Amber must have snacked till midnight with a 7 30 bedtime lights out 8 30 with school tomorrow. If the defence are not putting a huge screen video of cross section digestion with simulated time lapse photography, they could allow Lundy to be hanged. The NZ public are slavering hounds on this one, by what I can gather.

Last edited by Samson; 26th March 2015 at 02:24 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2015, 02:45 AM   #498
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Your figures look right, but I am trying to think like a juror. We are still waiting to hear from the source on the land deal. We fully expect to at some point. There is no doubt there can be a motive thread woven for the date, but he could never plan it for early evening because of brownies, so nothing fits. As the defence note, Amber must have snacked till midnight with a 7 30 bedtime lights out 8 30 with school tomorrow.
The bladder contents question didn't seem to come up, but maybe it wasn't reported. It's our old mate Pang again:

Quote:
Pang acknowledged at trial that he didn’t take notes during the post-mortem of everything he observed, relying on memory when making his full report later.
His initial post-mortem notes don’t appear to refer to bladder contents but his final report records Christine’s bladder having a “minimal amount” of urine and Amber’s a “small amount” – suggestive perhaps that they’d only just gone to bed, as would fit with an unnaturally early hour of 7pm.
However, the officer in charge of Amber’s body, Detective Constable Brett Calkin, who attended her post-mortem and made extensive notes throughout, recorded: “Mortuary attendant Matheson finds bladder is full of urine.” This notebook was available to Lundy’s lawyers but the jury never heard its contents. Would Amber’s bladder have been full if she’d just gone to bed?
Talk about a Keystone Cops operation. An autopsy in a double murder case, and he doesn't bother taking notes. They can't even agree between themselves what the evidence is. What a farce.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
If the defence are not putting a huge screen video of cross section digestion with simulated time lapse photography, they could allow Lundy to be hanged. The NZ public are slavering hounds on this one, by what I can gather.
I'm sure most of them have spent more time examining X-Factor contestants than the actual evidence .

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 26th March 2015 at 02:47 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th March 2015, 03:09 AM   #499
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
The bladder contents question didn't seem to come up, but maybe it wasn't reported. It's our old mate Pang again:



Talk about a Keystone Cops operation. An autopsy in a double murder case, and he doesn't bother taking notes. They can't even agree between themselves what the evidence is. What a farce.

I'm sure most of them have spent more time examining X-Factor contestants than the actual evidence .
I realise I am working just off easily accessible media links. Bladder evidence from autopsy is new to me.
Were it not for scores of papers I read on digestion to satisfy myself Meredith Kercher died while Knox and Sollecito were watching videos at a remote location, I would probably be suckered by this case also.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2015, 03:53 PM   #500
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Still no specific reference to the digestive evidence, that requires full stomachs and empty duodenums 8 3/4 hours after purchasing MacDonalds. If Justice France fails to deal with this in his summing up a conviction remains possible.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2015, 04:31 PM   #501
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
The person who said the stains on Mark Lundy's shirt contained signs of human brain was the only person saying so, but that did not mean she was wrong, Justice Simon France said.

Dr Laetitia Sijen did a test which, she said, found the stains on Lundy's shirt had signs of human brain in them.

The technique she used was criticised by various experts during the trial, who said it was not ready for forensic testing.

The judge said Sijen's results were not wrong just because the test was new in her field.

But it was important to note the Crown did not call witnesses to verify her test results were right, the judge said.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2015, 05:21 PM   #502
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
The judge appears to have completed his summing up without referring to the vital digestive evidence. While I expect an acquittal, a conviction now becomes possible. The digestive evidence and the pristine state of the car makes guilt impossible, but he has been convicted at two previous trials. I would like to see the full text of the summing up, as it was about thrree hours, and we only have about 80 lines of text.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2015, 07:10 PM   #503
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The judge appears to have completed his summing up without referring to the vital digestive evidence. While I expect an acquittal, a conviction now becomes possible. The digestive evidence and the pristine state of the car makes guilt impossible, but he has been convicted at two previous trials. I would like to see the full text of the summing up, as it was about thrree hours, and we only have about 80 lines of text.
You would hope so, it was a part of Hislop's summary, and France seems to be going over many of the key points. He addressed the testimony of Witness X (a complete joke) so I would assume he would cover the key point that would exonerate Lundy.

I've noticed you have to read a lot of coverage to get all the small details that are covered in the trial, some news agencies report items that others don't. For example, on probably the second last day I read two things I'd never heard before (even from the first trial):

Quote:
The police investigated Weggery, and also accused him of being the killer, but they did not carry on. Instead they returned to Lundy, their favourite target, Hislop said.

Quote:
Mr Hislop told the jury that police should have continued investigating Mrs Lundy's younger brother Glenn Weggery, who discovered the victims' bodies on the morning of August 30, 2000.
During the trial the defence directly accused Mr Weggery of murdering his sister and niece. It suggested the truck driver pretended to discover the bodies and pointed to a towel at his home that had a blood smear on it. A German forensic scientist testified traces of Amber and Mrs Lundy's DNA could not be excluded from tests on the towel.

"It's not my job to prosecute Glenn Weggery," said Mr Hislop. "But I can point out an example of tunnel vision where the police investigation might have stopped."

He said there were inconsistencies in Mr Weggery's statement to police about what he did on the evening before the murders were discovered.
Mr Weggery had told police he babysat a former girlfriend's son while she went to the movies.
The defence says he testified the friend returned home about 11.30pm. But during cross-examination that time changed to 10.45pm.

Time of death has not been established at trial but computer records show the Lundys' desktop was turned off at 10.52pm.
Mr Hislop said Mr Weggery changed his account to suit the time Mrs Lundy was thought to still be alive.
"The shift tells us something," he said. "Sometimes it's the small things that give you a clue or may cause alarm."

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 29th March 2015 at 07:13 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th March 2015, 09:41 PM   #504
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
You would hope so, it was a part of Hislop's summary, and France seems to be going over many of the key points. He addressed the testimony of Witness X (a complete joke) so I would assume he would cover the key point that would exonerate Lundy.

I've noticed you have to read a lot of coverage to get all the small details that are covered in the trial, some news agencies report items that others don't. For example, on probably the second last day I read two things I'd never heard before (even from the first trial):
The digestive evidence, strangely, precludes Christine turning off the computer, she was already dead. However, this was her normal bedtime. There are circles to be squared. The 2 30am TOD is completely impossible. I am still curious about the psychopath that worked with Christine, lived nearby with his parents. I believe a floorplan of his house would be helpful, with egress and driveways. I can't really buy into the brother, though anyone who had ever turned off the computer should be of interest.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 01:19 AM   #505
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,632
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
I can't really buy into the brother, though anyone who had ever turned off the computer should be of interest.
Quote:
"It's not my job to prosecute Glenn Weggery," said Mr Hislop. "But I can point out an example of tunnel vision where the police investigation might have stopped."

He said there were inconsistencies in Mr Weggery's statement to police about what he did on the evening before the murders were discovered.
Mr Weggery had told police he babysat a former girlfriend's son while she went to the movies.
The defence says he testified the friend returned home about 11.30pm. But during cross-examination that time changed to 10.45pm.

Time of death has not been established at trial but computer records show the Lundys' desktop was turned off at 10.52pm.
Mr Hislop said Mr Weggery changed his account to suit the time Mrs Lundy was thought to still be alive.
"The shift tells us something," he said. "Sometimes it's the small things that give you a clue or may cause alarm."
To me, this reads like the Judge is directing the jury that there is a viable alternate suspect and alternate theory of the crime. These alternates fit the known facts; lights on and off earlier in the evening, the computer turn off time, the digestive tract evidence, the yelling heard by neigbours. They are a much better fit to him than to the Police's prime suspect!
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 01:52 AM   #506
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
To me, this reads like the Judge is directing the jury that there is a viable alternate suspect and alternate theory of the crime. These alternates fit the known facts; lights on and off earlier in the evening, the computer turn off time, the digestive tract evidence, the yelling heard by neigbours. They are a much better fit to him than to the Police's prime suspect!
The digestive evidence goes close to eliminating the 10 58pm deaths. How do we get Christine naked in bed, and Amber's bed apparently unslept in?
No theory makes any sense, and that confounds me.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 02:49 AM   #507
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,632
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The digestive evidence goes close to eliminating the 10 58pm deaths. How do we get Christine naked in bed, and Amber's bed apparently unslept in?
No theory makes any sense, and that confounds me.
Well, I could have an explanation for the late shutdown of the computer if it was Windows 98.

I had a Win 98 computer with the original Norton Utilities and Antivirus. Once a week, Norton Antivirus would automatically carry out a complete virus scan of the HDD and it would do this regardless of whether the computer was switched on or not. It would use a preset timer setting in the BIOS to wake the computer in order to run the scan, then it would shut down the computer once the scan was completed. Of course if you switched the toggle switch off on the power supply (or pulled the mains plug) this would not work, but if you just did a standard Windows shutdown, the BIOS would wake the computer at the scheduled time.

What if Christine did go to bed early, and shut the computer down but the BIOS started the computer up later and then shut down at 10:52. IIRC, only the most recent shutdown time can be determined on a Win 98 computer.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 04:48 AM   #508
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Well, I could have an explanation for the late shutdown of the computer if it was Windows 98.

I had a Win 98 computer with the original Norton Utilities and Antivirus. Once a week, Norton Antivirus would automatically carry out a complete virus scan of the HDD and it would do this regardless of whether the computer was switched on or not. It would use a preset timer setting in the BIOS to wake the computer in order to run the scan, then it would shut down the computer once the scan was completed. Of course if you switched the toggle switch off on the power supply (or pulled the mains plug) this would not work, but if you just did a standard Windows shutdown, the BIOS would wake the computer at the scheduled time.

What if Christine did go to bed early, and shut the computer down but the BIOS started the computer up later and then shut down at 10:52. IIRC, only the most recent shutdown time can be determined on a Win 98 computer.
Something happened. (Joseph Heller)
Why did Amber's bed appear to be unslept in?
But why was Christine totally in bed (naked)?
11 pm is way way too late for the digestive evidence.
Never mind 2 30 am.

Back to Something happened.

The digestive evidence and Amber's unslept bed suggests an earlier death, but the naked mum in bed is a mystery.

ETA I read your post after my post, so some overlap

Last edited by Samson; 30th March 2015 at 04:57 AM.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 04:56 AM   #509
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 11,632
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
Something happened. (Joseph Heller)
Why did Amber's bed appear to be unslept in?
But why was Christine totally in bed (naked)?
11 pm is way way too late for the digestive evidence.
Never mind 2 30 am.

Back to Something happened.

The digestive evidence and Amber's unslept bed suggests an earlier death, but the naked mum in bed is a mystery.
1. Amber was 7. It is not unusual for kids around that age to have unusual sleep habits. My daughter used to sleep under the bed sometimes. She also would occasionally come into our bed when she had nightmares, or would sleep in my wifes bed if I was away on duty. I don't think there is anything unusual in this.

2. I also don't see naked in bed as all that unusual. Lots of people wear nothing in bed.
__________________
#THEYAREUS
The Mueller Report must be released to Congress in full - If Trump has nothing to hide, then he should also have nothing to fear!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 08:54 AM   #510
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
1. Amber was 7. It is not unusual for kids around that age to have unusual sleep habits. My daughter used to sleep under the bed sometimes. She also would occasionally come into our bed when she had nightmares, or would sleep in my wifes bed if I was away on duty. I don't think there is anything unusual in this.

2. I also don't see naked in bed as all that unusual. Lots of people wear nothing in bed.
My point is the stomach contents say earlier, the unslept bed says earlier, but Christine's habits and the computer say later.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 10:10 AM   #511
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,360
a hard case

I have not had time to post much (and unfortunately, that still holds true). However, my view is similar to Samson's. This case isn't gelling around a simple hypothesis or even a simple TOD the way that some do. However, Lundy's alibi is too strong for any reasonable TOD. MOO.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 02:01 PM   #512
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
The judge and the New Zealand media are recommending an osmotic approach. This is fundamentally flawed. They totally depend on the controversial microscopic stain, to connect Lundy to the scene, yet there are "smoking guns" keeping him away from the scene. This is pretty identical to the Arthur Thomas case and the planted cartridge. The stain was discovered months after the killings. In this case however I don't necessarily find it was noble cause corruption, or evidence planting. Misidentification or contamination look good.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 05:18 PM   #513
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
 
The Atheist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 22,429
Well, my 5-minute jury deliberation is out the window.

Is there a good lunch at court on Tuesdays?
__________________
The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.
The Atheist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 06:22 PM   #514
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The digestive evidence goes close to eliminating the 10 58pm deaths. How do we get Christine naked in bed, and Amber's bed apparently unslept in?
No theory makes any sense, and that confounds me.
What if

* Christine and Amber are killed close to 7pm - which accounts for the digestive evidence and Amber's bed not being slept in (Christine normally sleeps naked, this was stated during the retrial, Lundy had confirmed)

* The killer returns to the scene of the crime at 11pm to clean up/make it look like a burglary - jemmy the window, shut down the computer, take the jewellery box, etc. This would mean

1. The killer would likely live close by
2. If the killer knew the family, they would know that they weren't in any danger of getting caught by anyone returning - that only one other person lived in the house, and he was in Wellington - hence it would be safe to return

The second visit would account for the lights, the back door being open, etc.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 30th March 2015 at 06:31 PM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th March 2015, 07:04 PM   #515
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
What if

* Christine and Amber are killed close to 7pm - which accounts for the digestive evidence and Amber's bed not being slept in (Christine normally sleeps naked, this was stated during the retrial, Lundy had confirmed)

* The killer returns to the scene of the crime at 11pm to clean up/make it look like a burglary - jemmy the window, shut down the computer, take the jewellery box, etc. This would mean

1. The killer would likely live close by
2. If the killer knew the family, they would know that they weren't in any danger of getting caught by anyone returning - that only one other person lived in the house, and he was in Wellington - hence it would be safe to return

The second visit would account for the lights, the back door being open, etc.
The problem is that Christine normally went to bed much later, so the naked at 7 needs explaining.
There was even a problem with the Kercher murder, in that she was alive 2 and a half hours after witnesses said she ate, but it was a split meal, pizza then apple crumble separated by an hour, which means I believe the stomach stops starting to empty with the additional food, meaning she in fact died 90 minutes after completing dinner, at 9pm. Of course this was no problem for the prosecution taking an 11 30 death to court, which is what persuaded many that the Italians were fools. I can't believe having to watch this lunacy here.
There is one hospital that stops the gastric emptying scan after 2 hours, which means they always expect emptying to have commenced, otherwise the scan would be pointless. In essence, they would both have to have finished dinner after 9 for the stomach contents to be intact.
There is obviously a real world solution. It certainly is not that they finished dinner half an hour after midnight.
One possibilty may be an affair ending badly that night after an argument. Doesn't feel right, but gets her naked and deceased in a timely fashion.
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 01:56 AM   #516
Hard Cheese
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The problem is that Christine normally went to bed much later, so the naked at 7 needs explaining.
Perhaps retiring early to watch TV in bed? Maybe she just forgot to turn the computer off and couldn't be bothered to get up to do it (too cold in August to run around naked). Presuming she was killed within an hour or two of eating, it must have been the killer who turned it off. Hence my theory of the return visit, and possibly being someone who knew the family - they knew they could afford to either hang around or return later on without risk of being discovered.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
There is obviously a real world solution.
Without diminishing the seriousness of what is a truly horrific crime, it almost seems like a magic trick. When you see one performed, it's baffling. When you actually find out *how* it was done, often it's laughably simple.

Originally Posted by Samson View Post
It certainly is not that they finished dinner half an hour after midnight.
One possibilty may be an affair ending badly that night after an argument. Doesn't feel right, but gets her naked and deceased in a timely fashion.
Could be - it brings the rumours of an affair and other suspects back into play. But it seems awfully early in the evening for that sort of carry on You'd think they'd be doing it well after Amber went to bed, since Mark was away there would be no rush.

Last edited by Hard Cheese; 31st March 2015 at 01:57 AM.
Hard Cheese is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 03:07 AM   #517
Samson
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 8,209
Originally Posted by Hard Cheese View Post
Perhaps retiring early to watch TV in bed? Maybe she just forgot to turn the computer off and couldn't be bothered to get up to do it (too cold in August to run around naked). Presuming she was killed within an hour or two of eating, it must have been the killer who turned it off. Hence my theory of the return visit, and possibly being someone who knew the family - they knew they could afford to either hang around or return later on without risk of being discovered.



Without diminishing the seriousness of what is a truly horrific crime, it almost seems like a magic trick. When you see one performed, it's baffling. When you actually find out *how* it was done, often it's laughably simple.


Could be - it brings the rumours of an affair and other suspects back into play. But it seems awfully early in the evening for that sort of carry on You'd think they'd be doing it well after Amber went to bed, since Mark was away there would be no rush.
Magical tricks.
This work of black humour is cool, and a tour de force of writing.

http://www.bookdepository.com/Snowba.../9780349120515
Samson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 03:08 PM   #518
Charlie Wilkes
Illuminator
 
Charlie Wilkes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,177
Originally Posted by Samson View Post
The problem is that Christine normally went to bed much later, so the naked at 7 needs explaining.
There was even a problem with the Kercher murder, in that she was alive 2 and a half hours after witnesses said she ate, but it was a split meal, pizza then apple crumble separated by an hour, which means I believe the stomach stops starting to empty with the additional food, meaning she in fact died 90 minutes after completing dinner, at 9pm. Of course this was no problem for the prosecution taking an 11 30 death to court, which is what persuaded many that the Italians were fools. I can't believe having to watch this lunacy here.
There is one hospital that stops the gastric emptying scan after 2 hours, which means they always expect emptying to have commenced, otherwise the scan would be pointless. In essence, they would both have to have finished dinner after 9 for the stomach contents to be intact.
There is obviously a real world solution. It certainly is not that they finished dinner half an hour after midnight.
One possibilty may be an affair ending badly that night after an argument. Doesn't feel right, but gets her naked and deceased in a timely fashion.
I don't think the digestive evidence in the Lundy case is nearly as clear-cut as it was in the Kercher case. From everything I have read, the "clock" to when gastric emptying begins only starts at the point when the last food is consumed, just as you say. In the Kercher case, we know when that was. She ate her dessert around 8 pm, an hour before she got home, which strongly suggests she was killed before 10 pm.

In the Lundy case, we don't know when the victims last ate. We know when they bought their McDonalds meals, but the police also found evidence they prepared snacks at home.

This mother and daughter were both quite obese, which suggests poor dietary habits. They may have eaten their dinner and then nibbled at snacks throughout the evening, so their stomachs never began to empty.

But I don't think the digestive evidence in this case would allow for a TOD after 2 am, as the prosecutor now claims.
Charlie Wilkes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 04:51 PM   #519
Chris_Halkides
Philosopher
 
Chris_Halkides's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 9,360
some doubts about the duodenum evidence

I don't have a citation on this, but I am not sure that eating later on slows the digestion of the food one has already eaten. I am under the impression that the stomach can work in a segmented fashion (someone needs to do a study on this...). However, Christine and her daughter may have eaten again later. In addition, the man who performed the autopsy has torpedoed his own credibility in my estimation. During the first trial, he pinpointed the TOD down to a 15 minute interval, but his recent testimony opened up the window to 14 hours. Because of this extreme U-turn, I lost some trust in the competency with which he performed the autopsy.
__________________
“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had
happened.” – Winston Churchill
Chris_Halkides is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st March 2015, 06:38 PM   #520
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,025
Originally Posted by Chris_Halkides View Post
During the first trial, he pinpointed the TOD down to a 15 minute interval, but his recent testimony opened up the window to 14 hours. Because of this extreme U-turn, I lost some trust in the competency with which he performed the autopsy.
A window of 14 hours doesn't just indicate incompetence - one must wonder whether he actually examined the body at all!

Or perhaps he was taught by Steven Hayne:
Quote:
In past cases, Hayne has included in his autopsy report the weight of a man’s spleen, and made comments about its appearance, even though the man’s spleen had been removed four years prior to his death. In an autopsy on a drowned infant, Hayne wrote down the weight of each of the child’s kidneys, even though one of them had previously been removed. In one murder case, Hayne documented removing and examining the victim’s ovaries and uterus even though the victim was male.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Trials and Errors

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:30 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.